Documents attached

The Sub-Committee first received the Adult’s Social Care Complaints report.

It was noted that Adults Services operated a single?stage complaints process, with complainants able to escalate directly to the Ombudsman. Complaint numbers had fallen slightly from the previous year. Officers had increased focus on analysing complaints by ethnicity to ensure equitable access to the process.

Members noted there had been seven Ombudsman referrals received, a significant reduction compared with the previous year, and three cases resulted in findings of maladministration.

Members raised concerns about a sharp rise in cases categorised simply as “Adult Social Care” which officers attributed to miscoding within the case?tracker system, as it was being used as a ‘catch-all’. Officers explained that financial assessments continued to be one of the most common causes of complaint and noted that younger residents, aged 25–34, were becoming increasingly confident in submitting lengthy, often potentially AI?generated complaints.

The Sub-Committee agreed the following action points:

1.    Remove “Adult Social Care” as a catch?all category and reallocate cases accurately.

2.    Correct the categorisation of “personal care” which should not be classed as a disability category.

3.    Add clear timescales to the 2025/26 action plan.

4.    Provide training for complaints officers to improve handling of complex casework.

The Sub-Committee then received the Children’s Social Care Complaints report.

It was reported that the year had coincided with the aftermath of an Inadequate Ofsted rating, alongside significant restructuring and the introduction of an improvement plan. Complaint numbers had risen but officers emphasised that improved scrutiny and recording, rather than service deterioration, accounted for much of the increase. Many complaints related to staff attitude, which often arose from statutory requirements for unannounced visits. Officers also highlighted the increasing length and complexity of complaints, potentially generated with AI tools. It was explained that delays were being experienced at Stage 2 due to national shortages of independent investigators.

The committee noted that learning from complaints was being fed regularly into quality assurance and systemic?practice training for staff which aimed at strengthening communication with families and preventing escalation.

The Sub-Committee agreed the following action points:

1.    Update service categories within the case?tracker to reflect new structures and remove outdated headings.

2.    Ensure the 2025/26 report reflects new Family First Partnership arrangements.

The Sub-Committee then received the Education Service Complaints report.

Members noted a small fall in overall complaints with SEND complaints decreasing but general education complaints slightly rising. Member enquiries increased due to an improved recording processes. Response times had improved from 65% to 78%. Officers highlighted a new staff recognition scheme that acknowledged compliments and good practice.

Members noted that two Ombudsman cases were considered during the year; one resulted in maladministration with injustice, while the other required no further action. Members queried the exclusion of Ofsted?directed school complaints from the report to which officers explained that, although Ofsted handled these cases, the council was always notified and used the intelligence to support school?improvement monitoring.

The Sub-Committee agreed the following action points:

1.    Include a section in future reports explaining any liaison with Ofsted.

2.    Refine Education service categories within the case?tracker.