local government ombudsman service complaint review march … · lgo service complaint review...

Local Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review

March 2016

Executive Summary

1. This review of service complaints covers the period from September 2015 to

February 2016. I have examined 10 service complaints; two relating to intake

teams, three relating to assessment teams and five relating to investigation

teams.

2. The need to identify whether adjustments were required to assist service users

was a common feature in several cases. I am pleased to report that I found that

managers had addressed this correctly in each case.

3. I also found that the service complaints were addressed appropriately by

managers. I have therefore made a small number of recommendations to

enhance service delivery.

4. Recordings of telephone calls would have been invaluable in reviewing some of

the cases relating to assessment and investigation teams. I have previously

recommended this and I am aware that it is being considered.

5. A recording of a telephone call relating to a service complaint about an intake

team had been destroyed shortly before my review. I have therefore

recommended that the Ombudsman’s retention policy is also reviewed so that

some recordings can be retained for a longer period.

6. I have previously recommended that guidance is issued to ensure that

dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman’s service is brought to the attention of

managers without delay. This is also relevant to a case I considered in this

review.

7. In my last review, one service complaint related to a case where no progress had

been made but this had not been identified by the supervisory systems already in

place. I have examined a similar case during this review and therefore

recommended that these systems are reviewed.

8. Finally, I have identified a conflict in the information provided to complainants and

guidance to staff on how service complaints may be received. I have therefore

recommended that this is reviewed.

9. I have set out my recommendations below.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer

LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016

Reference Recommendations

Complaint Three

I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to discover if a lack of progress in investigations could be identified at an early stage and whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.

Complaint Four

In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already under consideration.

Complaint Five

In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already under consideration.

Complaint Seven

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the retention policy for telephone calls and consider introducing a process to identify suitable cases, such as those relating to complaints about the Ombudsman’s service, for retention beyond six months.

Complaint Ten

The Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff in respect of requests from callers to speak to a supervisor, including those instances where dissatisfaction with the service provided is apparent.

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the guidance given to staff on termination of telephone calls to ensure that a manager is alerted to a potential complaint about the Ombudsman’s service.

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing information contained in the Intake Team Manual and that provided to complainants to ensure consistency.


Complaint One

Summary

10. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator between

April and December 2015. He alleged that the investigator was biased, she had

delayed her investigation and she had not responded to letters. He also said that

the Ombudsman had discriminated against him as he is dyslexic and he was

expected to submit a complaint in writing.

11. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint; taking

into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working

practices.

12. I therefore make no recommendations.

Making a complaint

13. This service complaint was raised in a telephone call to the Ombudsman.

Although the complainant is dyslexic there is no indication that the complainant

required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.

Scope

14. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased and had delayed her

investigation unnecessarily. He also alleged that the Ombudsman had

discriminated against him. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this

appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the

complainant.

Reasonableness

15. This service complaint relates to a complicated case, only some aspects of which

fell within the remit of the Ombudsman. It was first raised, prematurely, with the

Ombudsman in January 2014. It was assigned to an investigator in November

2014 and transferred to another investigator in April 2015.

16. A draft decision was sent to the complainant in July 2015. In August 2015 the

complainant asked the investigator to attend a meeting with 200 women to

explain failings in the council’s systems. The investigator refused, explaining that

her role was to consider the injustice the complainant and his family had suffered

and an appropriate remedy.

17. In August the Assistant Ombudsman telephoned the complainant at his request.

He alleged that the investigator was biased because of her previous experience.

The Assistant Ombudsman assured him that the investigator was thorough and

understanding but the complainant felt that she was not trustworthy and asked

that his case be reassigned to a different investigator. This was considered by an

Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. She said she could see no

reason why the case should be reassigned, particularly at that stage of the

investigation.


18. In December 2015 the complainant responded to the draft decision. He also

telephoned the Ombudsman and again alleged that the investigator was biased;

she had delayed her investigation and was rude as she had not responded to

letters sent by other family members. He also said that the Ombudsman had

discriminated against him as he is dyslexic and he was expected to submit a

complaint in writing.

19. The complainant sent a lengthy letter to the Assistant Ombudsman repeating his

allegations. He also made further telephone calls in which he demanded that his

service complaint was dealt with immediately and that he was able to meet with a

senior manager. He was clearly angry and one of the telephone calls was

terminated for this reason.

20. This service complaint was passed to another Assistant Ombudsman who

reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant. He said that a meeting was

neither necessary nor appropriate and that there was no evidence of bias in the

investigator’s actions; she had concluded that the council was at fault in some

aspects of the complaint. He explained that the Ombudsman would normally

address any correspondence to the person making the complaint. He apologised

that the case had taken so long to address. It was reassigned as the original

investigator took on a new role but he considered it could have been addressed

sooner. He noted that the complainant was dyslexic and that he may find reading

difficult; letters sent to the complainant by the Ombudsman were written in a

larger font at his request, he had assistance from family members who were

clearly involved with his knowledge and consent and he had provided an

extensive written reply to the draft decision.

21. In January 2016 the Assistant Ombudsman telephoned the complainant. The

notes show that much of the conversation referred to the complainant’s

allegations, including the alleged discrimination. The complainant was loud and

excitable, interrupting the Assistant Ombudsman and refusing to accept what he

said.

22. Having examined the copious notes of telephone contact with the complainant

and correspondence received from and sent to the complainant, I can find no

evidence of discrimination. Indeed, it is clear that adjustments were made from

the start of the investigation to take account of the complaint’s dyslexia and

communicate effectively with him. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman’s

review and response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all

of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

Staying informed

23. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of his

complaint. They are written in a larger font at his request. There is also copious

telephone contact with the complainant.

Outcomes


24. The initial service complaint was received on 9 December 2015 and the Assistant

Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 5

January 2016. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.

25. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account

the information supplied by the complainant.

26. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.

Conclusion and recommendations

27. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with

the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

I therefore make no recommendations.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Two

Summary

28. This service complaint relates to letters sent to a complainant’s son during 2015.

He alleged that the Ombudsman addressed these incorrectly. The addresses are

that contained in the Royal Mail database which the Ombudsman checks for data

protection purposes.

29. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with the initial service complaint;

the complainant then complained about her and this was dealt with by the

Executive Director. Both reviews took into account the circumstances and the

Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no

recommendations.

Making a complaint

30. Both service complaints were raised in letters to the Ombudsman. There is no

indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to

make his complaints.

Scope

31. The complainant insisted that the Ombudsman incorrectly addressed letter to

him. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director addressed this

appropriately in their reviews of these service complaints and responses to the

complainant.

Reasonableness

32. These service complaints relates to a case where the complainant had died after

the Ombudsman’s investigation had finished. The Ombudsman was not aware

and, as is normal practice, sent a customer satisfaction survey in May 2015. The

complainant’s son informed the Ombudsman that she had died and asking the

Ombudsman to remove his mother’s details from their database. The investigator

wrote to the complainant’s son confirming this had been done and expressing

condolences. The complainant replied and said that the investigator had used the

wrong town in addressing his letter.

33. The investigator checked that the town used in the address was that contained in

the Royal Mail’s public database; the Ombudsman uses this database to ensure

that they comply with data protection requirements. He informed the complainant

of this in a letter.

34. The complainant replied, complaining that the investigator had ignored his

request and insisted that his preference was used in future correspondence.

35. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. She

wrote to the complainant, explaining the checks that the investigator had made to

confirm the complainant’s address. She said that that the town was listed in the

Royal Mail’s database for both the complainant’s and his mother’s postcodes. No

concerns had been raised in relation to correspondence sent to his mother’s


address and it was clear that the complainant had received correspondence sent

to him. She did not substantiate the complaint.

36. The complainant sent a lengthy reply, reiterating his complaint and explaining in

detail his objection to the Ombudsman’s use of the address contained in the

Royal Mail’s database. He then submitted a service complaint about the

Assistant Ombudsman which was passed to the Executive Director.

37. The Executive Director wrote to the complainant, explaining that he had no

reason to criticise the Assistant Ombudsman. He noted the complainant’s view

on the town used in his address and that, from its public database, the Royal Mail

took a different view. He said that the Assistant Ombudsman had addressed the

complainant’s substantive points and that the Ombudsman would not correspond

further about this.

38. The complainant sent a further detailed letter to the Executive Director. In light of

the Executive Director’s wishes, no further action was taken.

39. Letters from the complainant are pedantic and repetitive. There is no evidence to

suggest that the Royal Mail database is incorrect or that the complainant and his

mother did not receive any correspondence from the Ombudsman.

40. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's and Executive Director’s reviews and

responses to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the

circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I agree with

the Executive Director’s decision to consider the matter closed.

Staying informed


complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were

required in communicating with the complainant.

Outcomes

42. The initial service complaint was received on 12 October 2015 and the Assistant

Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant the next

day. The subsequent service complaint was received on 23 October and the

Executive Director reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on

30 October 2015. Both service complaints were dealt with within the published

timescale of 20 working days.

43. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director directly addressed the

complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant.







Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Three

Summary

46. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator in an

Assessment Team between February 2015 and January 2016. The complainant

questioned why there had been a long period without any contact from the

Ombudsman. A review of the case revealed that the investigator had failed to

use the casework records system correctly and appears to have subsequently

taken no further action.

47. The Head of Assessment dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking


practices.

I have recommended that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to

identify if this or similar incidents could be identified at an earlier stage and

whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.

Making a complaint

48. This complaint was raised in an email to the Ombudsman and referred to an

Assessment Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the

complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.

Scope

49. The complainant said that a long period had elapsed during which time she had

not been contacted by the investigator. The Assessment Team Leader

addressed this appropriately in his review and response to the complainant.

Reasonableness

50. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in February 2015 concerning an

issue with her daughter’s education. This was passed to an investigator for

assessment as to whether the Ombudsman should investigate her complaint.

The investigator wrote to the council in March 2015 and received a response the

next day. The investigator failed to use the casework records system correctly

and appears to have subsequently taken no further action in relation to this

complaint. As there was no further contact from either the complaint or the

council this only came to light in January 2016 when the investigator was absent

from work due to ill heath and her work was reassigned by the Head of

Assessment.

51. The new investigator contacted the complainant who requested an explanation

for the delay. This was treated as a service complaint and passed to the Head of

Assessment. He reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant, apologising for

the long delay and explaining the circumstances. He said that assessments are

usually completed within 20 working days and, whilst it may take longer in a small

number of cases, it should not have taken this long.


52. The Assessment Manual sets out the process by which complaints are assessed

including the objective of making a quick and clear decision on every incoming

complaint. It contains instructions on how cases are allocated and validated

using the ECHO database. Once team members allocate cases to themselves

the system sets a 20 day target and uses a traffic light system to indicate the time

period (showing red when 20 working days have elapsed). This is cleared if a

case is closed or forwarded for investigation.

53. Workload management and organisation is dealt with in appendix 3 of the

manual. The Head of Assessment is responsible for the effective operation,

quality and performance of the assessment process. He is supported by

Assessment Team Leaders who deal with day to day performance. The

Assessment Team Leaders take an overview of the work by running a daily

report on unallocated cases from the ECHO database. Each team also has a

Team Coordinator who is responsible for ensuring efficient administrative and

business systems.

54. Guidance in respect of Assessment Team Leaders’ supervision of allocated

cases is contained in the Quality and Standards Manual (paragraph 6.4). They

must quality check at least five cases for each investigator each year. Other

monitoring of performance indicators should ensure that, if the ECHO database is

used correctly, cases such as the one which is subject of this service complaint

are rare.

55. I found the Head of Assessment's review and response to the complainant to be

reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s

standard working practices. There is nothing recorded in the ‘Lessons Learnt

section of the ECHO database. It seems appropriate, however, to recommend

that the Ombudsman reviews the systems already in place to identify if this

incident could have been identified at an earlier stage and whether improvements

could be made to prevent this reoccurring.

Staying informed

56. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific

nature of her complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments

were required in communicating with the complainant.

Outcomes

57. The complaint was received on 18 January 2016 and the Head of Assessment

reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 5 February 2016.

This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.

58. The Head of Assessment directly addressed the complaint, taking into account

the information supplied by the complainant, including her views.



Conclusion and recommendation


the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. In light of the long delay in this

case I have recommended that the Ombudsman reviews the systems already in

place to identify if this incident could have been identified at an earlier stage and

any improvements.

Recommendation

I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to discover if a

lack of progress in investigations could be identified at an early stage and

whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Four

Summary


Assessment Team between March 2015 and January 2016. The complainant

alleged that the investigator was rude and unprofessional. The complaint was

reviewed by an Assessment Team Leader. Telephone conversations in

Assessment Teams are not recorded but the Assessment Team Leader had

previously had a difficult conversation with the complainant. He considered there

was no evidence to justify the complaint.



63. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and investigator in the

Assessment Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service

complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am

aware that this is being considered

Making a complaint

64. This complaint was raised in emails to the Ombudsman and referred to an



Scope

65. The complainant said that the investigator had been rude and unprofessional.

The Assessment Team Leader addressed this appropriately in her review and

response to the complainant.

Reasonableness

66. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in March 2015 concerning a

complaint about his council. Notes show that he had contacted the Intake Team

a few days after this as he was unhappy that his complaint had not been

allocated. He accused the adviser in the Intake Team of talking over him.

67. The complaint was allocated to an investigator in an Assessment Team who

decided that the case was not one that the Ombudsman could investigate and

issued a draft decision. He also explained the review process to the complainant

who did not accept his decision but declined to make further comment. The

investigator issued a final decision.

68. In June 2015 the complainant again telephoned the investigator. He said he

refused to accept the decision and wanted the investigator explain his decision

again. The investigator declined as they had already discussed it and there was

nothing new to add. The complainant alleged that the investigator was covering

up facts. The investigator terminated the call and the complainant then left a

voicemail message; he said the investigator was rude and unprofessional.


69. This service complaint was passed to an Assessment Team Leader who

reviewed the case and contacted the complainant. The complainant was

apparently aggressive and alleged that the Assessment Team Leader was

interrupting him. The Assessment Team Leader notes that it was the complainant

who was continually interrupted him and that the conversation was made more

difficult by the complainant’s partner speaking in the background. The

Assessment Team Leader concluded there was no basis for the complaint.

70. The complainant contacted the investigator again in January 2016, repeating the

demands he had made in his earlier telephone call. The investigator found him

aggressive and uncivil and notes that a third party was speaking constantly in the

background. The investigator terminated the call.

71. The complainant then sent a letter to the Ombudsman alleging that the

investigator was rude and unprofessional.

72. This was passed to the Assessment Team Leader who wrote to the complainant.

He included an extract from the investigator’s notes of the recent telephone

conversation with the complainant. He said that he did not know how the

complainant and the investigator spoken to each other but referred to the difficult

conversation they had in July 2015. He said that the complainant was unwilling to

accept that the Ombudsman could not help him and the recent telephone

conversation was unnecessary as it could achieve nothing. There was no

evidence that the service complaint was justified. He said that the Ombudsman

would note any further contact but would not acknowledge or reply unless it

clearly contained new information which had a bearing on the decision.

73. Guidance on unreasonable behaviour is included in the Assessment Manual. It is

recognised that unreasonable complainant conduct does not mean that there is

not a valid issue. Whilst there are no strict rules about formal action that the

Ombudsman might take, cases should be discussed with managers; this

happened in respect of this service complaint.

74. I found the Assessment Team Leader's review and response to the complainant

to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the

Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

75. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and the investigator in

the Assessment Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service


aware that this is being considered.

Staying informed

76. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and address the specific

nature of his complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments


Outcomes


77. The complaint was received on 14 January 2016 and the Assessment Team

Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant the next day.

This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.

78. The Assessment Team Leader Team Leader directly addressed the complaint,

taking into account the information supplied by the complainant, including his

views.





Recommendation

In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the

Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of

the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already

under consideration.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Five

Summary

81. These service complaints relate to a case considered by an investigator in an

Investigation Team between April and November 2015. The complainant alleged

that the investigator had misled him, not kept in contact with him and that there

was a delay in issuing the draft decision.

82. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with the initial service complaint.

The complainant then complained about her and this was dealt with by the

Executive Director. Both reviews took into account the circumstances and the

Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

83. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and investigator in the

Investigation Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service


aware that this is being considered

Making a complaint

84. Both complaints were raised in telephone calls to the Ombudsman. The

complainant is visually impaired but there is no indication that he required any

additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.

Scope

85. The complainant insisted that the Ombudsman incorrectly addressed letter to

him. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director addressed this

appropriately in their reviews of these service complaints and responses to the

complainant.

Reasonableness

86. These service complaints relate to a case considered by an investigator between

April and November 2015. The complainant is visually impaired and had given

his permission for the Ombudsman to write to him when he submitted a

complaint about his council.

87. There was a delay in issuing the draft decision. The investigator apologised to

the complainant who said that there was “no need and wants it done properly”.

88. The investigation then issued a final decision. The complainant requested a

review of this decision and complained about the way the investigation had been

conducted. He said that the investigator had misled him; she had told him she

would find in his favour if his council had misled him. He assumed that the

Ombudsman would record telephone calls (he was informed that this was not the

case). He said that he had also not been contacted by the investigator for a

month. He also said he wasn’t informed that he could have his case reviewed.

He requested that the person reviewing his complaint telephone him before a

decision was made.


89. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. She

wrote to the complainant, noting that he had requested a telephone call but that

she believed she had enough information to respond to him. She said she had

reviewed how the investigator had handled his case and found no fault. She

noted that the investigator had written to the complainant to keep in contact with

him but that there had been a delay in issuing the draft decision and apologised

for this. She explained the circumstances when a review would be conducted

and said that the investigator was correct in advising the complainant that the

fact sheet explaining the full process would have been sent to him at the start of

the investigation.

90. The complainant submitted a service complaint about the Assistant Ombudsman

as she had written to him even though he is registered blind.

91. The Executive Director wrote to the complainant, explaining that the Assistant

Ombudsman had written to the complainant as he indicated at the start of his

complaint about his council that this was an appropriate means of

communication.

92. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's and Executive Director’s reviews and

response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the

circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

93. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and the investigator in

the Investigation Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service


aware that this is being considered.

Staying informed


complaints. The investigator allowed the complainant an additional period to

respond to the Ombudsman on two occasions; once because the person who

helps him to read documents was away.

Outcomes

95. The initial service complaint was received on 27 November 2015 and the

Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant

on 21 December. The subsequent service complaint was received on 8 January

2016 and the Executive Director reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the

complainant on 26 January. Both service complaints were dealt with within the

published timescale of 20 working days.

96. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director directly addressed the

complaints, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant.






Recommendation

In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the

Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of

the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already

under consideration.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Six

Summary

99. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator from

November 2015. The complainant has mental health issues. He alleged that she

was not investigating him complaint and that she was a “hate criminal”.

100. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking


practices.


Making a complaint

102. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. Although the

complainant has mental health issues there is no indication that the complainant

required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.

Scope

103. The complainant could only be contacted by letter which he either threw away or

returned unopened. He alleged that the Ombudsman was ignoring his complaint

and that the investigator was a “hate criminal”. The Assistant Ombudsman

addressed this appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response

to the complainant.

Reasonableness

104. This service complaint relates to a case which was allocated to an investigator in

November 2015. The investigator attempted to speak to the complainant on the

telephone number he had provided but found this to be out of service. He had not

provided either a mobile telephone number or an email address so she wrote to

him inviting him to telephone her. The complainant returned this letter unopened

with a handwritten note suggesting it should be redirected to his council. The

investigator initiated enquiries with the council. A few days later the Ombudsman

received a letter from the complainant alleging that the investigator was not

investigating his complaint and inferring that the Ombudsman would be biased

because of his mental health issues.

105. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman who reviewed

the case and wrote to the complainant. She said that the investigator had not

done anything wrong, assuring him that his complaint was being investigated and

explaining the difficulty the investigator had in contacting him. She asked the

complainant to advise the Ombudsman how best to contact him.

106. Some weeks letter the Ombudsman received a letter from the complainant. He

alleged that the investigator was a “hate criminal” and that any mail sent to him

by the Ombudsman was thrown away unopened.

107. The investigator sought advice from the Assistant Ombudsman as she had no

other way of contacting the complainant. The Assistant Ombudsman said that the


complainant should be asked to cooperate with the Ombudsman’s investigation

or his complaint would be treated as withdrawn. This letter was also returned to

the Ombudsman. The investigation was therefore discontinued.

108. The complainant’s mental health issues were taken into account during this

investigation. Attempts were made to communicate effectively with him and I

have found no evidence of bias against him. I found the Assistant Ombudsman's

review and response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all

of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.

Staying informed


complaint. The complainant’s mental health issues were taken into account.

Outcomes

110. The initial service complaint was received on 17 December 2015 and the

Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant

on 21 January. This is one day outside the published timescale of 20 working

days.








Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Seven

Summary

114. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an

advisor in an intake team in July 2015. The complainant alleged that she had

made it clear to the adviser that she preferred not to be contacted by email. She

also claimed that she had told the advisor that she had power of attorney. The

adviser did not record relevant information and this delayed progress for several

months.

115. The Intake Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking


practices.

116. The recording of telephone call has been destroyed in line with the

Ombudsman’s retention policy. I am aware that the Ombudsman is already

considering the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the

process. A review of the retention policy would assist subsequent enquiries such

as my reviews, particularly if a process to identify suitable cases for retention

beyond six months is introduced.

Making a complaint

117. This complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman which was referred to an

Intake Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the

complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint.

Scope

118. The complainant alleged that the adviser did not record relevant information and

this delayed progress for several months. The Intake Team Leader addressed

this appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the

complainant.

Reasonableness

119. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an

advisor in an intake team in July 2015. I have not had the opportunity to listen to

a recording of the call as it has been destroyed in line with the Ombudsman’s

retention policy (all telephone calls to the Intake Team are recorded and held for

up to six months - Information Manual, Part 3: Retention and disposal of

casework records, paragraph 2.1).

120. The issue with regards to power of attorney only came to light in January this

year during a telephone call between an investigator in an Assessment Team

and the complainant. The complainant said that she had informed the adviser in

the Intake Team. The investigator apologised as she was not aware and there

was no reference to this in the written complaint or any other information. The

complainant also said that she had asked for letters to be posted rather than sent

by email.


121. The complainant subsequently complained in a letter to the Ombudsman. The

complaint was referred to an Intake Team Leader who listened to the telephone

conversation and responded to the complainant. He apologised for the delay in

progress. He said that there was no mention of power of attorney in the recorded

conversation. He agreed that that call could have been handled better and that

more information could have been recorded by the adviser. He thought that the

complainant had made it clear that she preferred not to receive emails and this

was not recorded as he would have expected.

122. As the recording of the telephone conversation has been destroyed since the

Intake Team Leader’s review, it is not possible to consider this as part of my

review. I have reviewed relevant documents and agree that there is no mention

of power of attorney until it came to light in January. Notes also record in some

detail attempts to communicate with the complainant by email and post and it is

apparent that both methods of communication have been unsuccessful on

occasion and that this has contributed to the delay.

123. There is no reason to question the Intake Team Leader’s review of the telephone

conversation. It would, however, have been helpful to my review if I had the

opportunity to also listen to the conversation.

124. I found the Intake Team Leader's review and response to the complainant to be

reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s

standard working practices.

Staying informed

125. The letter to the complainant is well written and addresses the specific nature of

her complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were


Outcomes

126. The service complaint was received on 11 January 2016 and the Intake Team

Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 19 January,

within the published timescales of 20 working days.

127. The Intake Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account

the information supplied by the complainant, including her views.

128. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint




130. It would, however, have been helpful to my review if I had the opportunity to also

listen to the conversation. I am aware that the Ombudsman is already

considering the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the

process. A review of the retention policy would assist subsequent enquiries such


as my reviews, particularly if a process to identify suitable cases for retention

beyond six months is introduced. This would enhance the transparency of the

organisation and demonstrate how the Ombudsman positively manages the

interactions between staff members and its users. It would also help to ensure

that opportunities for organisational learning and service improvement are not

missed. This is particularly important in those cases where it is apparent that the

caller wishes to register dissatisfaction with the service received from the

Ombudsman.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the retention policy for telephone

calls and consider introducing a process to identify suitable cases, such as those

relating to complaints about the Ombudsman’s service, for retention beyond six

months.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Eight

Summary

131. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator from

November 2015. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased, had

had not understood all of her complaint and had trivialised some aspects.

132. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking


practices.


Making a complaint

134. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. There is no

indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to

make her complaint.

Scope

135. The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to fully understand her

complaint and was biased. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this

appropriately in his review of the service complaint and responses to the

complainant.

Reasonableness

136. This service complaint relates to a case which was allocated to an investigator in

November 2015. The investigator contacted the complainant to discuss the case.

The complainant subsequently sent an email to the investigator. She was upset

at some of the comments made by the investigator and she questioned her

objectivity. She thought that the investigator had not understood all of her

complaint and had trivialised some aspects.

137. The investigator wrote to the complainant, apologising that she was unsettled by

their conversation. She explained that the purpose of their conversation was to

establish why the complainant was unhappy with her council, the aspects of her

complaint which she wished to pursue further and how the faults had affected

her. The investigator assured the complainant that she understood the key

aspects of her complaints. She explained that it was normal practice to contact

the council as part of her investigation but had yet to do so. The complainant

would be given an opportunity to comment on any information received. She

asked the complainant if she wished the service complaint to be forwarded to her

manager.

138. The complainant replied. She said that she expected the Ombudsman to use its

skill and expertise to determine the important aspects of her complaint rather

than being continuously asked to select them. She set out these out in some

detail. She also confirmed that she wished this service complaint to be passed to

a manager.


139. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman who reviewed

the case and wrote to the complainant. He recognised that some complainants

consider that their written submission should be sufficient for the Ombudsman’s

investigation to proceed and acknowledged the complainant’s exasperation. He

said that the Ombudsman expected their investigators to be clear about which

matters they decide to investigate. An initial telephone call with complainants is a

key part of the process as it checks understanding of the complaint, gathers

further information and manages expectations. He said that he did not consider

that the investigator had acted inappropriately and it was clear that the

conversation enabled her to be clear about what enquiries she needed to send to

the council.

140. The complainant replied, alleging that the investigator was not impartial and that

the Assistant Ombudsman had not considered all aspects of her complaint. She

said that the Assistant Ombudsman appeared to have regarded her concerns as

a personal attack on the investigator rather than about the service she had

received. The Assistant Ombudsman considered that much of the original email

complaining about the telephone conversation was about her substantive

complaint about her council. Although the complainant had alleged that the

investigator was biased and favouring the council, it seems necessary to await

the investigator’s decision. He decided that he did not need to take any further

action and did not respond.

141. Some weeks later the complainant told the investigator that she was expecting a

response from the Assistant Ombudsman. He wrote to the complainant

explaining why he had not replied and that this remained his view.

142. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's review and responses to the

complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and

the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. Given the content of the

complainant’s reply to the Assistant Ombudsman’s first letter, it may have been

helpful to have replied to her at an earlier stage. This would have made the

Assistant Ombudsman’s view clear to the complainant and helped to manage her

expectations.

Staying informed

143. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of her

complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were


Outcomes

144. This service complaint was received on 11 November 2015. The investigator

replied to the complainant the next day. The service complaint was passed to an

Assistant Ombudsman on 13 November and he reviewed the circumstances and

wrote to the complainant on 24 November. This is within the published timescale

of 20 working days. The Assistant Ombudsman also replied to a subsequent

email from the complainant.









Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Nine

Summary


Assessment Team between October and November 2015. The complainant said

he had not received some of the emails sent to him by the investigator. He had

also not received the investigator’s draft decision on his complaint and had

therefore missed the opportunity to comment before the investigator made a final

decision. He alleged that the investigator had not followed proper procedures.


the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no

recommendations.

Making a complaint

150. This complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman and referred to an



Scope

151. The complainant said that the investigator had not followed proper procedures in

communicating with him. The Assessment Team Leader addressed this

appropriately in her review and response to the complainant.

Reasonableness

152. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in October 2015 concerning a

complaint about his council. The Intake Team sent him an email requesting

further information and he telephoned in reply to the Ombudsman and also sent

written information. The intake Team subsequently sent the complainant two

more emails. The complaint was allocated to an investigator in an Assessment

Team on 18 November. He concluded that, without needing any further

information from the complainant, the Ombudsman was unable to investigate the

complaint. He sent the draft decision to the complainant by email and, when he

received no reply, issued a final decision.

153. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman on 8 December. He said he had not

received the emails sent to him by the Intake Team or the investigator in the

Assessment Team. He complained that the investigator had not followed proper

procedures, he had not been informed what would happen or the format of any

emails he would receive from the Ombudsman.

154. This service complaint was passed to an Assessment Team Leader who

reviewed the case and responded to the complainant. She explained that the

Ombudsman records all communications sent and received. As the complainant

had responded to the first email sent to him by the Intake Team, there was no

reason to suppose he would not receive any further emails. The team had

therefore sent him an email to inform him that his complaint had been passed to

an investigator for assessment as to whether the Ombudsman should investigate


his complaint and another providing a leaflet explaining how the Ombudsman

assesses complaints, what would happen next and the format of the

Ombudsman’s email addresses.

155. The investigator had made his decision in accordance with the Ombudsman’s

Assessment Code, and had sent this to the complainant using the same email

address. When it became apparent that the complainant had not received this,

the investigator resent the emails which the complainant received. The

investigator did not invite comment on this occasion.

156. The Assessment Team Leader considered that it would have been helpful had

this been offered so she gave the complainant a further opportunity to comment.

She concluded that there was no fault in the investigator’s actions.

157. I found the Assessment Team Leader's review and response to the complainant


Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no

recommendations.

Staying informed

158. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific

nature of his complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments


Outcomes

159. The complaint was received on 9 December 2015 and the Assessment Team

Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 14

December. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.

160. The Assessment Team Leader Team Leader directly addressed the complaint,

taking into account the information supplied by the complainant, including his

views.




the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no

recommendations.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer


Complaint Ten

Summary

163. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an advisor in an intake

team in February 2016. The complainant alleged that the advisor treated him with

derision and hostility and that she had not addressed his protected characteristic

during their telephone conversation. The adviser terminated the call but did not

record this service complaint or refer the matter to a manager.

164. The Customer Service Manager dealt appropriately with this service complaint,

taking into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working

practices with one exception. I have previously recommended that the

Ombudsman considers issuing guidance to staff on referring callers and

complainants to supervisors. This is relevant to this service complaint.

165. I have also recommended that the guidance to staff on terminating telephone

calls is reviewed in light of this service complaint.

166. Information provided to staff in the Intake Team Manual conflicts with information

provided to complainants. I have recommended that this is reviewed.

Making a complaint

167. This complaint was raised in a telephone call to the Ombudsman. The

complainant repeatedly referred to his “protected characteristic” and that he did

not have to submit complaints in writing; he did not specify the protected

characteristic but it is reasonable to assume that it relates to a disability affected

his ability to either read or write. The adviser said that the complaint would

normally be in writing and asked the complainant what help he required to make

a complaint. This reflects the information provided to complainants (fact sheet

G4). This conflicts with the Intake Manual (paragraph 10) which states that

service complaints can also be presented orally. The adviser terminated the call

before the complainant provided any details of the help he needed.

168. The complainant subsequently repeated his service complaint in an email. He

asked for responses using a large font and this was done in the email sent to

him.

Scope

169. The complainant alleged that the adviser failed to make reasonable adjustments

and that he was treated with derision and hostility. The adviser also terminated

the telephone call but did not refer this to a manager or record the service

complaint.

170. The Customer Service Manager addressed this appropriately in his review of the

service complaint and response to the complainant with one exception; this is

reflected in my recommendations.


Reasonableness

171. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an advisor in an intake

team. I have had the opportunity to listen to a recording of the call with the

complainant. The advisor was polite throughout the six minutes of conversation;

there is nothing which suggests that her manner was either hostile or degrading.

The complainant repeatedly referred to his “protected characteristic” without

specifying what these were or what help he required. He mentioned several

times, however, that he did not have to submit anything in writing. When the

complainant said that he wanted to complain about the service he had received

from the Ombudsman the adviser suggested this should be in writing, referring to

his ability to write emails to his council, but also asked the complainant what help

he required to make a complaint. When he asked to speak to a manager the

adviser told him that no one was available. She terminated the call when the

complainant became agitated and before he could provide any details.

172. There is nothing to indicate that the adviser recorded the service complaint or

referred the matter to a manager.

173. The complainant then sent an email to the Ombudsman. He alleged that the

adviser had treated him with derision and hostility and had refused to make a

reasonable adjustment. He also said that the adviser had refused to take details

of his service complaint over the telephone. He asked for responses using a

large font; this is a further indication of the nature of his protected characteristic

i.e. disability.

174. The email was referred to the Customer Service Manager who listened to the

telephone conversation and responded to the complainant. He said that, as the

complainant had emailed his council, he concluded it was reasonable for the

adviser to assume he was capable of making written submissions. He also

pointed out that it was only possible to make reasonable adjustments if staff were

aware of what adjustments were necessary. Although the adviser had asked this

of the complainant, he had not provided any information. He advised the

complainant to telephone the Ombudsman if he wished so that arrangements

could be made to take his complaint. The complainant replied by email, again

referring to his unspecified protected characteristics, and his view that the

Ombudsman was hostile and degrading towards him. He said he would seek a

remedy through the courts.

175. It is difficult to assess to what extent the complainant required adjustments to the

normal procedure for making complaints although it is reasonable to assume that

he has a visual impairment. I am satisfied that the adviser and the Customer

Service Manager made repeated attempts to establish the nature of the

complainant’s disability and the adjustments that were necessary. I have found

nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and professional or

that there was any discriminatory behaviour.


176. Information about service complaints is included on the Ombudsman’s internet

site and in the relevant fact sheet (Fact sheet G4 – Complaints about us) which is

also available on the internet site.

177. This states that, if complainants are dissatisfied after discussing the complaint

with the member of staff they are dealing with, the complaint will be considered

by a senior member of staff. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, it

should normally be made in writing. The fact sheet also gives advice for

complainants who have difficulty in using the Ombudsman service, for example if

they are disabled. Complainants are advised to let the Ombudsman know so that

the help that may be provided can be discussed.

178. This conflicts with the Intake Manual (paragraph 10) which states that complaints

can also be presented orally (whereas the Investigation Manual refers to the fact

sheet and makes no mention of how a service complaint can be made).

179. The complainant wished to complain as he was clearly unhappy about the way

that the adviser had dealt with him. The adviser should have recorded the

contact on the ECHO database and referred it to a manager (paragraph 10.2 of

the Intake Team Manual). There is nothing which indicates she did so. This could

be construed as an attempt to prevent the service complaint from being

recorded.

180. The complainant also wished to speak to a supervisor. Paragraph 10.2 of the

Intake Team Manual sets out the process if a team’s supervisor is unable to deal

promptly with a service complaint. The investigator’s supervisor was apparently

not available but there is no indication that attempts were made to refer this

complaint to another supervisor. This could be construed as an attempt to

prevent or dissuade the caller from speaking to a supervisor.

181. Termination of telephone calls is addressed in paragraph 7.2 of the Intake Team

Manual. This refers to unacceptable behaviour such as offensive and abusive

remarks. Calls terminated for such reasons should be reported to a supervisor

immediately who will record the incident and decide whether more action is

required.

182. In this particular case the adviser terminated the call as the complainant said he

was becoming agitated and she concluded that she could not help him further.

This does not exactly match the criteria mentioned in the manual although the

complainant was clearly unsatisfied with the service he had received from the

Ombudsman. If he had not subsequently complained again the opportunity to

learn any lessons may have been lost, particularly as there was no record of this

service complaint at that stage.

183. I have previously recommended that the Ombudsman consider giving guidance

to staff that a caller or complainant, wishing to speak to a supervisor, should be

allowed to do so without unnecessary delay. This is particularly important in

those cases where it is apparent that the caller wishes to register dissatisfaction

with the service received from the Ombudsman. In these circumstances, the


matter should be referred to a supervisor without delay. It is inevitable that the

staff member’s manager will sometimes not be available. If this is the case, the

complainant should be referred to another manager.

184. This would enhance the transparency of the organisation and demonstrate how

the Ombudsman positively manages the interactions between staff members and

its users. It would also help to ensure that opportunities for organisational

learning and service improvement are not missed.

185. I found the Customer Service Manager's review and response to the complainant


Ombudsman’s standard working practices. The failure to record the service

complaint and refer it to a manager should have been addressed although there I

have found nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and

professional or that there was any discriminatory behaviour.

Staying informed

186. The email to the complainant is well written and addresses the specific nature of

his complaint. It is written in a large font as requested by the complainant.

Outcomes

187. This service complaint was received on 2 February 2016 and the Customer

Service Manager reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant that

day.

188. The Customer Service Manager directly addressed the complaint, taking into

account the information supplied by the complainant, including his views.




the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. The failure to record the service

complaint and refer it to a manager should have been addressed although there I

have found nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and

professional or that there was any discriminatory behaviour.

191. There is nothing recorded under “Lessons Learned” on the Echo database in

respect of the failure to record the service complaint or refer it to a manager. The

Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff that a caller or

complainant, wishing to speak to a supervisor, should be allowed to do so.

192. This is particularly important in those cases where it is apparent that the caller

wishes to register dissatisfaction with the service received from the Ombudsman.

In these circumstances, the matter should be referred to a supervisor without

unnecessary delay.


193. This would enhance the transparency of the organisation and demonstrate how

the Ombudsman positively manages the interactions between staff members and

its users. It would also help to ensure that opportunities for organisational

learning and service improvement are not missed.

194. The Intake Team Manual contains information on how a service complaint can be

made which contradicts the information in the relevant fact sheet. The

Ombudsman should consider reviewing the relevant information so that

instructions to staff reflect the information to complainants.

195. The manual also gives guidance to staff on terminating telephone calls but the

circumstances in this case did not match the criteria for referring the matter to a

supervisor. The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the relevant guidance in

light of this service complaint.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff in respect of

requests from callers to speak to a supervisor, including those instances where

dissatisfaction with the service provided is apparent.

Recommendation 2

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the guidance given to staff on

termination of telephone calls to ensure that a manager is alerted to a potential

complaint about the Ombudsman’s service.

Recommendation 3

The Ombudsman should consider reviewing information contained in the Intake

Team Manual and that provided to complainants to ensure consistency.

Graham Manfield

External Reviewer

local government ombudsman service complaint review march … · lgo service complaint review...

Documents