Agenda item

That the implementation of a new ‘Compliments, Comments and Complaints Policy and Procedure’ be approved subject to an amendment to Change 5 (page 92) so that residents remain the primary point of contact for complaints and the amended report to return to a future Cabinet meeting.  

Decision

That the implementation of a new ‘Compliments, Comments and Complaints Policy and Procedure’ be approved subject to an amendment to Change 5 (page 92) so that residents remain the primary point of contact for complaints and the amended report to return to a future Cabinet meeting.

Reason for Decision

For Cabinet to review and approve the implementation of a new ‘Compliments, Comments and Complaints Policy and Procedure’.

Implications

Financial

Managing complaints ensures that we improve the quality of services and target our resources in the most effective way.

Operational

The failure to properly address issues raised in complaints (and to learn lessons) could lead to operational service issues.

Value for Money

Effective management of complaints supports the achievement of value for

money in the pursuit of the Council’s objectives

Risk Implications

A robust Asset Management Strategy (AMS) mitigates the risk of the Council not being able to deliver the benefits described above.

Health & Safety Implications

None

Corporate Objectives

Modern and Efficient Council – The effective management of complaints is vital to ensure that we deliver services which respond to the needs of residents.

Monitoring Officer/S.151 Officer Comments

Monitoring Officer:  

This policy will ensure that residents have a right to request that decisions, actions or omissions of the Council are reviewed at an appropriately level of management within the Council.  The policy balances that right with the need to manage complaints in an efficient manner.   

S.151 Officer

There are no direct financial implications of this decision.

Advice

The Portfolio Holder for Residents and Corporate Services introduced the item and said the change in policy was needed to manage and learn from complaints. In 2014/15, the Council received 1248 complaints and significant time and resources were used to solve complaints. The Innovation and Improvement team have identified issues in the current system and have incorporated this into the new process. It is hoped that the new system will allow for a more robust reply. The Portfolio Holder summarised the changes to the procedure:

-       There will be a time limit of 90 days from the incident whereas previously there was no limit.

-       We have introduced a clear policy for dealing with inappropriate, unreasonable or vexatious complainers. We currently have no formal policy on this issue.

-       We have reduced the number of complaints steps from three to two. This is in line with LGO guidance and it streamlines our approach in line with many other local authorities. As we have reduced the process we have also revised down

time allowed for Stage 1 from 20 days to 15 days.

-       At present if anyone is unhappy, for any reason, they can ask for progression to Stage 2 and Stage 3. This is not an effective use of resources and it means we are likely to spend disproportionate amounts of time dealing with unreasonable demands and expectations.

-       We can often receive the same complaint from a resident and an MP, if they have chosen to send details of their issue to multiple parties. This makes it time consuming and difficult to manage, because in effect we are handling (and responding to) the same complaint twice. It can also delay the process.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing objected to the change regarding dealing with just an MP complaint. The Portfolio Holder felt it was rude to not continue with a resident’s complaint unless they have specifically stated that they have handed over the complaint for the MP to deal with.

The Assistant Director for Performance, People and Innovation said that currently, complaints are dealt directly with the resident and with the MP and it is recorded. With the new procedure, we can deal with one complaint in one manner and therefore we will not be dealing with two points of contact. This also prevents the risk of inconsistencies.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability and Regulatory Services supported the comments from the Portfolio Holder for Housing. The Portfolio Holder said it was totally wrong to drop the resident’s complaint. It would be more sensible to copy the MP into any correspondence, not make the MP the principal complainant.

The Portfolio Holder for Residents and Corporate Services understood the concerns raised. If the resident has enacted the MP as their representative then they will be the main point of contact. The MPs serving Dacorum have not yet been consulted.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing asked who would get priority if the same complaint was raised by a resident, a councillor and a MP.

The Assistant Director for Performance, People and Innovation said it would depend on the circumstance but Councillors and MPs would both be involved. The Assistant Director said the aim here was to have a single point of contact. If Cabinet would like to change the resident to the single point of contact then that can be changed in the procedure.

The Leader of the Council said that if the answer should be the same for both the resident and MP and the Council should not need to change their response due to pressure from an MP. The resident should be the primary point of contact and the MP notified. The Leader said himself or the Chief Executive should raise this personally with the local MPs.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability and Regulatory Services questioned the 90 day time limit. The 90 days from the incident may be inappropriate in cases where houses have had work done to them and if the work is of a poor standard, then this may not be apparent for some time. Can the policy be tweaked for exceptions? The Portfolio Holder was also concerned with the changes regarding refusing resident’s progress to stage 2 and the involvement of the Local Ombudsman. 

The Assistant Director for Performance, People and Innovation said that the 90 day limit is from when a resident becomes aware of an issue and that the complainant can pursue the matter with the Local Ombudsman even if the Stage 2 process is refused by the Council on a complaint.  He said he would amend the wording in the Policy to clarify this.

The Leader of the Council suggested that the feedback from Cabinet be implemented and then brought back to Cabinet to discuss and show changes.

Voting

None.