Agenda item

The Committee received two reports, one which detailed the complaints received by the Local Government Ombudsman’s office for 2017/2018 and one which set out the Member Enquiry and Complaints Annual Report for 2017/2018. It was noted that this report was compiled later than usual due to the introduction of GDPR regulations. It was anticipated that the Complaints and Member Enquiries annual report for 2018/19 would be issued in July 2019. The reports were introduced by Carla Segel, Head of Service Delivery and Debbie Darling, Acting FIG and Business Support Manager, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 63-75.  The following was noted in response to the discussion:

a.    The Committee sought reassurance about the Council being able to demonstrate that it was learning from complaints, particularly in light of a rising number of upheld complaints. The Committee also expressed concern with the proportion of complaints received in relation to housing benefit claims and council tax. In response, officers advised that there was one report issued by the Ombudsman against Haringey in 17/18 which was serious and the Council had accepted the report’s findings. Officers advised that there were 24 cases that were investigated by the LGO and upheld, the bulk of which required the formal issuance of an apology. Only one of these upheld cases related to housing benefits. Officers acknowledged the need to get better at learning from complaints across the organisation and commented that they were working with IT to develop learning points from each case on the Council’s Respond system. Officers agreed to come back to the Committee with an update on the process of learning from complaints and how this was reported to OSC at a future meeting. (Action: Carla Segal).

b.    The Chair noted with concern that Haringey had the highest number of complaints of its statistical neighbours. The Chair sought clarification on how much the Council spent on financial redress. In response, officers agreed to circulate that information to Members outside of the meeting.  (Action: Carla Segal).

c.    The Committee sought assurances around the discrepancy between the low volume of S2 complaints in Children’s Services and the comparatively high cost of redress payments. Members requested further information in relation to this as well as what proportion of the redress cases related to SEND children. (Action: Carla Segal).

d.    The Chair commented that the Council had consistently failed to meet its target in relation to complaints and sought assurances that the target would be met in the current year. In response, officers advised that the current year to date score was around 90% and that the target would not be met this year. Officers advised that this was a very challenging performance area and that a number of staff had been lost from this area over the years. Officers welcomed the opportunity to have a discussion with Members about how the service could meet the target of 95%.

e.    The Committee requested that officers provide case studies of the types of complaints that were regularly received as well the responses given and that these come back to the Committee as part of its discussion on FOBO and the wider complaints process at its April meeting.  (Action: Carla Segal).

f.     The Committee sought further information in relation to the nature of the 292 complaints received from the Revenues service and the nature of those complaints. In response, officers advised that this was a difficult area and there were a lot of cases where people simply did not want to pay what was outstanding. However, there were also some issues around chasing old debt and incorrectly applied discounts, for example. Officers advised that over half of these complaints were generated in response to the policy being implemented correctly but they were still logged as complaints because the customer was unhappy. 

g.    The Committee sought assurances about whether there were any vacancies within the service. In response, officers advised that there were none with the service that collated the complaints but there could well be some in the individual services who responded to complaints. Officers cautioned that there was no scope for expanding the staffing resources to improve the performance scores, however improvements needed to be made to improve to self-reporting of complaints, which would reduce demand at the back-end. Improvements in the process were also required to make sure that the Council got it right first time.

h.    The Committee sought clarification about the information set out in table 3.11 of the complaints report and queried whether some of the complaint reasons could be unpicked to provide more clarity about the underlying reasons of those complaints. In response, officers acknowledged that the information could be presented differently in order to ascertain what the reasons were and whether there were learning points gleaned. (Officers to note).

i.      The Committee raised concerns with clarity of communication with residents generally, and noted the specific example of recent changes to rent bills causing confusion to members of the public, which in turn generated a number of complaints from residents who were unsure of how much they owed.

j.      The Chair commented about the heading used around ‘general information/service’ request and the fact that it was a particularly vague term. The Chair requested that officers reviewed the use of this heading and consider breaking it down further. (Action: Carla Segal).

k.    Officers agreed to come back to the Committee in July to discuss the 2018/19 complaints report. (Action: Carla Segal).

RESOLVED

     I.        That the contents of the Ombudsman Letter Report 2017/18 and the proposed next steps be noted; and

    II.        That the contents of the Complaints and Member Enquiries Annual Report 2017/18 and the proposed next steps be noted.