Agenda item

The Chief Digital and Information Officer and the Business Manager presented the Annual Complaints and Service Monitoring Report for 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.

The report was presented annually to the Committee, detailing complaints information for the financial year. It covered the complaints process, recent changes and observed trends.  It was reported that the aim was to use complaints data to improve services by comparing the number of complaints with other local authorities and using insights to enhance service delivery.

The report provided an overview of the complaints process and key statistics. The following key points were highlighted to the Committee:

-          the number of informal complaints dropped from 5176 last year to 3729 this year, with significant reductions in anti-social behaviour issues.

-          Stage 1 complaints decreased from 816 to 681, while Stage 2 complaints increased from 121 to 180, mainly concerning housing allocation.

-          Ombudsman investigations rose from 46 to 65, but 40 of these were not pursued further, indicating initial assessments found no merit.

-          The volume of Members' enquiries and service requests totalled 11,791, a significant increase from the previous year.

The report emphasised on learning from lessons to make improvements, with changes being implemented as required by the Ombudsman.

Members discussed the increase of the digital experience and how this would impact the level of Members Enquiries as residents would be able to handle various issues themselves without local Ward Councillor support. It was recognised that adjustments needed to be made for vulnerable people who were unable to access the system digitally and the Council kept a reasonable adjustment log to record these adaptations.

In terms of the implementation of lessons learned and the timelines for delivery, it was explained that lessons learned were implemented immediately. Whether identified within the Council or by the Ombudsman, these lessons were shared with senior officers and noted within the service. Follow-ups on implementation were conducted to ensure that the  appropriate actions were taken.

In response to questions around the effectiveness of the service request system that was intended to directly connect requests to service teams, it was confirmed that the system generally worked as intended. When a service request was submitted it went directly to the actual service. However, there were occasional  misdirected requests that required manual intervention.

The significance of using data to improve services was noted during Member discussions. Officers emphasised  the importance of using data from complaints and service requests to shape services. There was a focus on  understanding data behind lower-stage complaints to address issues before they escalated and using  AI for handling repetitive service request. The Committee was informed that the Council aimed to publish more data to allow residents to find information independently, reducing the need for formal requests and enabling more efficient resource allocation.

Concerns were raised about the challenges in housing and the high number of complaints. In response to the handling of 40 investigations that were not pursued by the Ombudsman and the lessons learned from these cases, it was explained that when the Ombudsman received a complaint, they reviewed the information provided before deciding whether to investigate. In cases where the Ombudsman did not investigate, it was often due to policy issues. The importance of providing clear information on the Council's website to help residents understand the process and reduce the number of complaints was highlighted. The website needed to be updated on a regular basis to ensure that it had the most relevant accurate information.

The Committee asked whether there were service level agreements for stage 1,2 and 3 complaints, and the timescales taken to resolve these complaints. It was explained that both housing and the local government Ombudsman introduced complaint handling codes with specific requirements. For service requests and stage 1 complaints, the response time was10 working days, extendable by another 10 days in exceptional circumstances. Stage 2 complaints must be resolved within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 days if necessary. The adult social care complaints procedure required a response within 20 working days at stage 1, after which they go to the Ombudsman. The children's complaints process involved an independent investigator at stage 2, with a maximum timeframe of 65 working days, and a review panel at stage 3 with a 45 working day response time.

In terms of the balance in the policy about unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints, it was explained the policy change was minor, involving the approval stage of the restricted persons register. The unreasonable person's policy and the restricted persons register were linked, and when someone abused the process, a submission was made to the relevant Head of Service to put the person on the restricted persons register. Restrictions may include no email contact, only telephone calls or letters. The Head of Service considered the facts and, if the request complied with the policy, approved it. A letter was then sent to the individual, explaining the restrictions and the appeal process. Members heard that the policy was rigorous, and only approximately 25 to 30 people were on the restricted persons register out of 290,000 residents.

The importance of recognising and sharing compliments for officers who performed well, alongside handling complaints was significant in Members’ view. It was noted that there had been over 200 compliments and were shared with the individual and their manager to ensure recognition. The Goss complaint system also allowed for compliments to be submitted online, which were then communicated to the relevant teams.

The Committee welcomed the comprehensive report and thanked officers for their attendance.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.