Agenda item

Members are invited to note the review and decide whether the proposed changes to the Stage Three process should be implemented.

The Committee was reminded that since 2010 the Council had been developing and refining its Corporate Complaints process and, in tandem with it, the transition to Stage Three and the conduct of Stage Three itself has evolved. 

The report summarised the changes which the Committee had brought about during that time and made suggestions of further refinements in order to ensure the continued provision of a robust, efficient and cost-effective service for complainants and the Council especially in the current climate of financial constraint and transformation.  Members were reminded that:

·           By 2010 the old adversarial form of hearing had been replaced by an inquisitorial one which had speeded up the process and placed the control of the hearing back into their hands.

·           In 2012 the Committee had agreed to trialling Initial Assessment Panels (IAPs) - taken from the (by then) defunct Standards Committee - as a way to deal with complaints informally and quickly, without the necessity (and cost) of a formal hearing. The process allowed a complainant to proceed to a formal hearing if the IAP considered that was appropriate.

·           Between 2010 and 2012 there had been a dramatic fall in the number of cases being referred to Members, but during 2013 there was a steady rise in Stage Three requests being received and actioned.

·           During the past three years there had been changes to the terminology used for the Stage Three process itself which moved from an “Appeal” via “Hearing Request” to the current “Member Review”.  This last most accurately described the function Members engaged in (particularly but not limited to) the IAP element.  Members were invited to consider a complainant’s claims in the context of what the Service ought to have been providing and to view that provision (or alleged failings) in the light of reasonableness and natural justice which was consistent with the expectations of such external bodies as the Local Government Ombudsman.

·           IAPs were now fixtures in the Council’s diary on a monthly basis usually falling on the forth – but on occasion the third – Thursday of the month.  If there were no complaints ready in time, any coming forward would be held over to the next IAP scheduled date.  Any complaint adjourned by a Panel could either wait for the following IAP or, if Members are so minded, an ad-hoc meeting could be arranged.

Complaints were now recorded sooner and there was a growing number of complaints which commenced, but not completed either by the complainant withdrawing or by the process stalling because the complainant dids not provide the Council with a formal statement of complaint which is the starting-point for Stage Three.

The Committee was asked whether - In order to ensure that complaints did not remain “outstanding” for an unreasonable period of time – it would endorse some form of limitation to the amount of time complainants could be allowed to take without informing the Council of any exceptional circumstances.  Currently, every complainant received 20 working days in which to provide their case.  How much longer did the Committee consider would be reasonable before the complainant was informed the process had been terminated.

The Committee was also presented with a request to add flexibility to the Stage Three process.  From time to time an issue might arise which, by its very nature (perhaps needing to be handled with sensitivity or involving matters which fell outside the usual scope of corporate complaints), would be inappropriate to follow the normal procedure of issuing a Member Review form and passage through an IAP.  In such exceptional circumstances - would the Committee allowing the matter to be dealt with in a more flexible manner, perhaps by proceeding directly to a formal hearing?  If the Committee was agreeable, in such cases, the Chairman would be consulted and if agreed, the clerk would make arrangements to deal with the complaint as appropriate.

In conclusion, Members were informed that whatever happened at the forthcoming local elections, there would continue to be a need for complaints to be resolved, if not by officers, then by the review and judgement of Members.  Because the position of local authorities was very much in a fluid state – which showed no sign of ending – changes to the way in which complaints were managed and resolved might continue to evolve for the foreseeable future.  Unless Members themselves chose to relinquish their role in the process (and Havering was one of a diminishing number of authorities which retained a thee stage complaints process in which councillors were a part), there would always be a need to ensure that complaints were effectively and efficiently addressed in a cost-effective manner and this would undoubtedly involve further refinement to the process to make that a deliverable reality.

Whilst it was true to say that 2013/14 had seen an upturn in complaint escalation to Stage Three, the outcomes were more transparent and more easily available to inform future action than at any time previously.  As technology (and on-going reduction to Council funding meant that all Council services had to evolve to be more efficient and effective), it was hoped that what was leaned from the decisions and outcomes of complaints would become useful tools for ensuring that future service delivery incorporated those outcomes to help raise standards of good practice and help minimise any recurrence of those issues in the future.

The Committee noted the report and decided to make the following refinements to the Stage Three process.

1.            Once a Member Review form had been sent to a complainant, they would continue to be given 20 working days in which to provide a response.  If no response was received in that time and there was no indication of any exceptional reason why the form could not be completed and returned, the Stage Three process would be terminated and the complainant informed of their right to approach the Local Government Ombudsman as the Council’s Complaints procedure was ended.

2.            If an issue arose which, by its very nature (perhaps needing to be handled with sensitivity or involving matters which fell outside the usual scope of corporate complaints), would be inappropriate to follow the normal procedure of issuing a Member Review form and passage through an IAP.  The matter would be dealt with in a more flexible manner, perhaps by proceeding directly to a formal hearing.  In such cases, the Chairman would be consulted and if agreeable, the clerk would make arrangements to deal with the complaint as appropriate.