Agenda item

Ian Anderson - Business Manager, Complaints and Enquiries, introduced the annual complaint report for Housing Services and Adult Social Care, which spanned the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. The Committee was advised that the statistics were broadly similar to the previous year. Key points highlighted were:

Housing Services

Within Housing Services, informal complaints had been seen to reduce, with 201 fewer complaints recorded, totalling 455, in comparison to the 656 complaints recorded in 2015/16. It was suggested that the reason for this reduction was the recent mild winter, during which residents likely had less need for repairs.

Stage 1 complaints had increased by 7, to a total of 125, of which 22 were upheld, 14 partially upheld, and 82 not upheld. 7 complaints were either cancelled or withdrawn. The average time taken to conclude a Stage 1 complaint was 8.26 working days, against a target of 10 working days.

Stage 2 complaints had been seen to have fallen, from 25 in 2015/16 to 12 in 2016/17. Of these, 3 complaints were upheld, and 9 were not upheld. The average time to conclude a Stage 2 complaint was 11.16 working days, against a target of 10 working days.

There were no Stage 3 complaints. 22 complaints were concluded by the Ombudsman, with 1 complaint upheld, 2 partially upheld, 12 not upheld, and 7 not investigated.

Compliments had reduced, from 23 in 2015/16 to 19 in 2016/17. It was recognised that compliments were less likely to be submitted than complaints.

Overall, a greater number of complaints were now progressing directly from Stage 1 and or 2 to the Ombudsman, for example complaints received from residents who were ineligible for housing, but continued to challenge the homelessness policy.

Adult Social Care

Within Adult Social Care, informal complaints had reduced from 131 in 2015/16 to 105 in 2016/17.

Stage 1 complaints had reduced from 39 in 2015/16 to 35 in 2016/17. Of these, 4 complaints were upheld, 9 were partially upheld, and 22 were not upheld. The average time taken to conclude a stage 1 complaint was 10.47 working days.

8 complaints were concluded by the Ombudsman during this period, with 3 upheld, 4 not upheld, and 1 discontinued.

Compliments had been seen to have increased by 61%, to a total of 79 in 2016/17, from 49 for 2016/16.

When comparing Hillingdon's statistics to those of other Authorities, it was apparent that the number of formal complaints received from adults in this Authority was substantially lower than that of Councils such as Ealing or Buckinghamshire. This was due to the proactive work carried out by Hillingdon officers to resolve issues at the informal stage and Stage 1 of the complaints process.

Home Care Providers received 96 informal complaints during the period 2016/17. Of these, 40 complaints were upheld, 25 were partially upheld, and 31 were not upheld. The most common complaints were related to poor time keeping (62 instances), missed calls (49 instances) and poor quality of care (42 instances). It was highlighted that an individual could cite multiple reasons for complaining, per complaint instance. It was felt that often these issues were basic errors that should not be repeated, and the Council was now actively working with providers to address these issues.

The Complaints department had seen a 7% increase in enquires from Elected Members, when compared to the previous year. The number of enquiries received totalled 9,185. Of these, Housing Service accounted for 11% (984) and Adult Social Care accounted for 3% (237) of all Member enquires recorded. Approximately 38% of enquiries related to waste or antisocial behaviour (ASBIT) issues.

Members expressed the view that, while the complaints received by the Home Care Providers may seem basic, such issues could be deemed as neglect or abuse, and it was important to ensure that vulnerable residents were receiving the expected level of care. Members sought further information on what was being done to address such issues.

Members were informed that the Contract Management team held a monthly, in-depth review, at which each individual complaint incident was discussed with the relevant Home Care Provider. A traffic light system was in place to monitor performance. This process was instigated approximately 12-18 months ago, and so was still in early stages, but the importance of improving had been recognised. If any issues recorded related to safeguarding, these were referred to the Safeguarding team, and dealt with via a separate process.

The Committee suggested that the comparatively low number of complaints received may be due to a perceived difficulty in submitting a complaint, or a fear that the complaint would prejudice a resident's care.

The officer explained that the process to submit a complaint was designed to be easy to carry out, with complaint forms submitted by social workers on residents' behalf. It was recognized that some residents may be fearful of retribution following the submission of a complaint, but that was would not be manifested by the care provider.  It was accepted that some residents may not be aware of how to submit a complaint, but that such residents were difficult to identify. In addition, it was felt that it was important to provide the Home Care Provider with the opportunity to resolve the issue, but that if the resident was not satisfied with the outcome, they could complain directly to the Council. Most complaints were upheld, but if issues were seen to have repeated, than the Home Care Provider could be changed. On occasion,  complaints were not upheld, due to residents having unreasonable expectations of their Care Provider.

Members sought clarity on how the complainant was notified of the outcome of their complaint, and how the matters were reported on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website.

It was confirmed that the CQC website held reports and recommendations, but that the process, with the relevant services, only came together within the Ombudsman's office.  The outcome of the complaint was communicated by way of telephone call, email or letter, depending on the stage of the complaint. In cases where maladministration had resulted in a financial loss, compensation was offered. In some cases, a complaint is forwarded to the Council's insurer, who would deal with the complainant directly.

Members sought clarity on how unsatisfactory housing repairs were dealt with.

The officer confirmed that a senior manager would investigate such issues, and speak with the contractor in question, which could lead to a review of the contract itself. It was highlighted that most complaints received were about Council workers rather than contractors, and were dealt as part of the usual staff appraisal process. One of the more common complaints was in relation to mould and condensation, which was deemed to be a lifestyle issue, and for which the Council provided prevention literature.

The Committee requested that a breakdown of Member Enquiries, by Ward, be forwarded to all Members. In addition, it was suggested that the incident breakdown included in the report be amended in future reports to include what had been learned and what actions had been taken, rather than just a summary of the incident. It was also suggested that the wording relating to the time taken to respond to a complaint be amended to ensure clarity that this was a response, not a final conclusion of the issue.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the report be noted;

2.    That a breakdown of Member Enquires, by ward, be forwarded to all Committee Members;

3.      That the officer incorporate the Committee's suggestions, as set out above, when drafting next year's report.