Agenda item

Presentation by Patrick Keyes

Members received a presentation from the Head of Regulatory Services who explained that he was taking a different approach to the usual statistics-based format by considering complaints through the complaint routes (Corporate complaints process, LGO, Members) and complaint themes (Customer dissatisfaction, disagreement with decisions, delay, alleged bureaucracy, staff behaviour etc.).  He explained that his service areas ranged from Planning/Building Control, through the Bereavement Service (Cemeteries and Crematoria), Public Protection (Environmental Health, Licensing and Trading Standards), Registrars, strategic Development and Transportation Policy and Emergency Planning.  He stated that there were around 150 members of staff across the services and, because of the specialised nature of those services the majority of them were technically or professionally qualified.

The Committee was informed that in the period June 2013 to September 2014, whilst just under half of the complaints recorded at Stage One concerned the Bereavement Service (70), the conciliatory approach by its staff in this emotionally sensitive area, ensured that very few progressed further.  The second highest Stage One complaint area was Environmental Health (36), but at Stage Two, Environmental Health accounted for half of the complaints (12) whilst Cemeteries and Crematoria had shrunk to only two.

Continuing the themed approach, the head of Regulatory Services explained how – by learning from examples of good practice – his services had shifted their attitudes from a purely process-focussed approach to one which was outcome orientated with staff – whilst remaining professional – were also approachable.  This, he said, almost always diffused potentially confrontational situations and, by empathising with the complainant and taking time to explain (in plain English) the issues involved, it had been possible to ensure that even if the complainant did not like the decision, by understanding the reasons behind it, the likelihood of the complaint being escalated became significantly reduced.

He stated that this change in the perception of how complaints could be better addressed translated itself into pro-active ways of working, for example: using historical records to inform the present position, assessing site conditions, more joint and cross-service working, liaising closely with external partners, identifying potential problems early on and addressing them fully at the earliest stage possible before they could escalate.

The Committee was then provided with three examples of how the process had been applied in practice involving an issue which had had the potential to be a major issue involving a family who had been misinformed about the site of the plot where a family member had been buried.  This had been a highly emotive and embarrassing situation which, through the sensitivity and tact of staff, had been resolved to the satisfaction of the family.  Another example involved a planning issue and an intractable resident who, after having the situation explained, appreciated the position and, whilst not liking the decision accepted that it was the only realistic option available.  The third example involved a property which had, over a number of years become not only an eye-sore but dangerous and which, after at least two court appearances and enforcement action, was only resolved by the service taking direct action to remove scaffolding and get the area cleaned up.

In addition he informed Members that the learning process was on-going; that staff were regularly updated with developments; that they were involved from the outset in the complaint resolution; that there was a great deal more cross-service exchange of thought to ensure a seamless service provision; that a cross service complaint protocol was invoked this year to ensure that a lead officer had oversight whenever more than one agency was involved and that processes were revised regularly (facilitated by regular team meetings and one-to-one’s.

In conclusion, he mentioned compliments and gave a few examples which, he assured Members, demonstrated the success having a policy of staff “going the extra mile”, being professional, showing empathy and being helpful.

The Committee noted the scope and content of the presentation and thanked the Head of Regulatory Services for his highly informative and most encouraging presentation.