Agenda item

Presentation by Gill Hiscox, Executive Manager, Chief Executive’s Office on the changes to the Corporate Complaints process and its implementation.

The Executive manager, Chief Executive’s office provided the Committee with a presentation covering the recently introduced revised Corporate Complaints procedure.

In the presentation, Ms Hiscox reminded Members that the revisions had been introduced in order to ensure that the complaints process was truly “corporate” and that anomalies and abuses which had crept into the previous process were talked and eliminated.  In short, the aims were to reduce the length of time a complaint was in the system from an almost open-ended situation to a time-managed process, with Stage One having 15 working days to provide an answer, Stage Two being overseen by the Chief Executive’s Office but drawing on the appropriate head of Service and having 20 working days and Stage Three – with Members - lasting no more than a calendar month.

In order to ensure that this time-table was maintained, the routes for complaint had been strictly controlled. The essence was the on-line form (and complainants could receive assistance in completing this or have staff do it for them), but it was at the heart of the process as the complaint would be defined, recorded and checked to ensure that it was not a duplication of another through the CRM data-base.

There would be no exchanges of corresponded (particularly e-mails), simply an acknowledgement and a decision. If that failed, the complaint moved to the next stage and if a resolution was not obtained here, it proceeded to Stage Three, where Members would have far less material to have to consider and the complaint issue and steps taken to address it along with the all the staff input would be available to them in a manageable form.  This should ensure a decision should be easy to reach as the plethora of correspondence which appeared to attend the old process would be eliminated.  Should a complainant remain dissatisfied, they could refer the matter to an ombudsman, but there would be no opportunity to claim that the process had taken over-long to complete.

The Committee was provided with a virtual example of how the Portal should function and were reminded that for them to either make enquiries about a complaint or register one on behalf of a complainant, this was a quick and simple point of access which had several advantages in that it populated a number of data sets which would automatically generate accurate and robust information for both Members and senior officers to whom it would have relevance.

Another benefit of ensuring the process was properly applied across the Council was that it would present a truly “corporate” face.  In addition, a coherent process would be easier to manage, be better understood by staff (and customers) and help in identifying where there were weaknesses or failures, highlight “trends” and even show good practice.  In addition it was designed to address customer expectations and uphold the Council’s reputation, whilst driving down costs in both officer time and other resources.

In conclusion, the Committee was informed that currently the focus of the team was to ensure that the first two stages were properly established.  The Chief Executive was taking a pragmatic approach to how the process would make the transition between Stages Two and Three and until that occurred, planning for it would be limited.  There was a general idea, but the details would need to be filled in as cases came forward. 

The procedure had been put in place for a four to six month “trial” at which point it would be audited and evaluated and, if necessary, further changes could be introduced to enhance to process.  What was certain was that the procedure as a whole was not static but could adapt to circumstances as they changed over time, providing the key principles of keeping the process simple, time-managed, empathetic and open and transparent, were preserved.

Members received the presentation positively and raised one or two queries concerning their wider role in the community and whether the complaints process was flexible enough for them to continue to engage with complainants and resolve matters informally.  In response, it was suggested that this was a procedure for when informality had failed – though the role of Members as arbitrators was always welcome.

The Committee thanked the Executive Manager, Chief Executive’s Office for her presentation and noted the entertaining and informative manner in which she had delivered it.