Handling of Complaints Topic Group

MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______To: All Members of Resources Scrutiny From: COUNTY SECRETARY’S Committee, Cabinet DEPARTMENT All Chief Officers Ask for: Ext: 25564 My Ref: AS Your Ref: ______

HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS TOPIC GROUP 8 MARCH 2006

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

ATTENDANCE

G M Cook (Chairman), P V Goggins, J E Heywood, D B Lloyd, A Mitchell.

Officers

J Brown - Lead Officer – Assistant County Secretary D Moses - Head of Scrutiny A Service - Group Administrator

1. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meetings of the Topic Group held on 8 and 14 February 2006 were confirmed as correct records.

2. EVIDENCE FROM A COMPLAINANT ON THE COUNCIL’S SYSTEM

The Panel considered the written submission made by Complainant F containing comments and views on the person’s experience with the Council’s complaints system in pursuing a complaint regarding a Children, Schools & Families matter. The following concerns were raised by and suggestions made by the complainant : -  Accessing the complaints system a) Lack of guidance led to delay in advising of the formal complaints process and responding to additional points made.  Managerial accountability b) Identification – accountable managers are not always referred to. In over 2 years the case has been handled by more than 12 staff. c) Response Letters have been patronising and dismissive. d) Internal communication Staff appeared to be either unwilling to follow or unaware of complaints procedure. Even after CAU [Conciliation & Appeals Unit] became involved CSF managers did not advise us to notify of action taken or inform of progress.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 1 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______ Conduct of Stage 2 e) Progress Reports Kept fully informed at all times by CAU.

f) Independent Overview Initially sceptical by appointment of an independent investigator previously employed within the service. The investigator did not show any partiality or give CSF undue advantage.

 Suggestions for change and improvement g) Clarification should be given on the information contained on the front cover of Child Protection Case reports. h) A precise timescale should be set for the consideration of complaints by service providers. i) Initial referral – Unresolved issues should be immediately referred to the CAU on expiration of the set timescale. j) Internal communication - Once the formal process has begun, managers should be required to indicate which stage of the process applies on each piece of correspondence or in reports of meetings and keep both the client and CAU informed. k) Content and presentation - Guidance should be given on how to prepare a case, preferably in writing. l) Preventing Corroboration – where two or more staff are subject of complaint they should be interviewed separately.

The Topic Group observed that the points made mirrored comments made by other complainants at the last meeting.

3. EVIDENCE FROM FRONT LINE STAFF The Topic Group individually interviewed the following five front line Departmental staff, asking questions and for their experience and opinions on the current processes for dealing with the public who were unsatisfied with Council services being provided : - a) Rose Geraghty, Community Learning Disability Team Manager, ACS b) Stephen Hozier, Admissions & Transport Manager [East Area], CSF c) Danny Kyan, East Herts District Manager [Herts Highways] Environment d) Mike Watson, Assistant District Librarian for East Herts, Libraries Service e) Caroline Cook, Initial Assessment (for Care) Team [East Area] CSF

a) Rose Geraghty – Adult Care Services

Rose stated that prior to working in Adult Care Services Department she had previously worked for Children, Schools & Families Department. She stated that she had been impressed from starting work in Adult Care Services of their induction to new staff encouraging them to apologise to the public where the public were contacting them to raise concerns or expressing dissatisfaction of Council services provided. Furthermore there was strong emphasis on resolving issues or concerns raised by the public as soon as possible. She stated that emphasis was placed on listening to issues raised by the public and making sure that the points being made were fully understood.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 2 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______She stated that in her time working within the Children, Schools & Families Department she felt that staff were less able to say sorry in dealing with the public who were raising issues of concern. She advised that much of her work involved contact with teenagers and often information was given in confidence which teenagers did not want passing onto to their parents. When clients contacted them raising issues they would be offered and sent if desired a package of information to assist them, including a booklet detailing how complaints could be made plus a complaints form. She stated that the telephone staff approach to a person dissatisfied with what they had heard was that they would be advised of their immediate supervisor who they could contact if they did not like the response they were given. In response to a question that it was difficult to raise issues / complaints directly with the person handling the service and effectively being complained about, she felt that social workers and her other colleagues would rather hear about the issue directly so that the issue could be resolved quickly rather than fester. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in operating the stage 2 approach, i.e detailed investigation by an appointed investigator to stage 1 complaints she did not feel there would be overall benefit to this approach as there were a vast range of differing reasons why issues were taken up. In response to a question on the added difficulties of persons with disabilities making complaints she felt that organisations like POhWER as well as social workers would assist them if they wished to make a complaint. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in establishing a centralised complaints unit to handle all complaints made against the Council, she felt that it would be a good move and aid consistency. She stated that she had spoken to a number of colleagues about the differing process that is followed when a complaint is sent in by a Hertfordshire Member of Parliament in that they are initially dealt with by a senior manager rather than by first line staff and it was seen as inequitable that they were capable of dealing with complaints from the general public but not those forwarded on by MPs. b) Stephen Hozier – Children, Schools & Families Department

Stephen Hozier advised that the Admissions & Transport Section had recently been organised and had previously been Students Services. The main line of his work was dealing with parents whose children had not been admitted to schools of their first choice. Other issues he dealt with were complaints relating to pupils suspension from school, confiscation of unauthorised personal articles taken to school etc. He stated that letters relating to admissions complaints were answered within 10 days and complaints by telephone were often dealt with prior to follow up letters being received. He stated that most of the admissions complaints were made because parents did not get the choice of school they wanted for their children and this made up 95% of all admissions complaints made. The remaining 5% were made about mistakes in the admissions process.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 3 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______Copies of letters responding to complainants were circulated for member reference. He stated that the majority of school admissions complaints would be dealt with prior to the Appeals on the same cases being heard. He stated that due to the regions of Hertfordshire covered by each Admissions Team in the CSF Department had changed as from 1 January 2006, he could not give an explanation why the number of complaints for the East Region had increased this year but was not because of a change in the rules as they had not changed for 3 years. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in establishing a centralised complaints unit to handle all complaints made against the Council, he felt that the current arrangements involving the Conciliation and Appeals Unit within the CSF Department was an efficient system and operated in an independent manner. Furthermore he felt that such a move would result in loss of specialism. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in operating the stage 2 approach, i.e detailed investigation by an appointed investigator to stage 1 complaints he felt this would be a difficult task and they would be swamped by the amount of work this would involve in investigating all stage 1 complaints received. In response to a question, he stated in respect of school admissions matters parents often involved their local MPs in taking up their complaints with responses having to be made to both the parents and MPs by him and his staff. The content of letters sent to parents and MPs tended to be worded differently using appropriate language best suited in responding to the writer in question. He stated that school admissions complaints did involve some level of telephone contact with MPs by him or his staff. In response to a question he stated each year there were hundreds of complaints made about school admissions in Hertfordshire with probably 100 days each year being tied up in hearing appeals made.

c) Danny Kyan – Environment

Danny Kyan advised that as the District Manager of East Herts highways service team he dealt with complaints relating to highways maintenance work undertaken, gulley emptying, vehicle crossovers or staff discourtesy to the public. He stated that from all the grumbles about highway services in East Herts only 12 stage 1 complaints had resulted and with only 3 of these ending up as stage 2 complaints. He stated that the majority of complaints about road works tended to be dealt with within 3 days and where necessary investigations with staff involved with the work undertaken and a written response made within 15 to 21 days.

In response to a question as to what was recognised as a complaint about the standard of road works, Danny Kyan stated that once the road works were undertaken, the work would be inspected and provided the work was satisfactorily undertaken within 2 weeks it would not evolve into a complaint.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 4 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______In response to a question he stated that his staff was aware that highway complaints made by the public about road works undertaken by contractors including Amey Lafarge were complaints they were responsible for as Hertfordshire County Council employees. In response to a question he advised that he was not aware of questionnaire responses invited from complainants and had not seen any completed questionnaires. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in operating the stage 2 approach, i.e detailed investigation by an appointed investigator to stage 1 complaints he did not feel there would be overall benefit to this approach. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in establishing a centralised complaints unit to handle all complaints made against the Council, he felt that in regard to complaints made against the Environment Department, the Department was adequately resourced to handle these. There was already close links with the insurance section as regards accidents arising from highway faults. A centralised complaints unit could be useful and an effective way of dealing with all complaints received.

d) Mike Watson – Library Services

Mike Watson advised that as the Assistant District Librarian for East Herts, he dealt with complaints relating to level of charges; books, CDs and DVDs stocked and access to library premises. He stated that the nature of the responses from and concerns raised by library users tended to all to be dealt with at stage 1 level and rarely proceeded to stage 2. He stated that Library staff did receive training on the handling of the public and this assisted with minimising the number of complaints made. He advised that the way of working of the library service, meant that all library staff endeavoured to resolve concerns or complaints made by library users at face to face level within the library and would rarely get to him in written form to respond to. Requests for books would often be made via comments cards available in libraries. Stage 2 complaints would be dealt with by the Libraries Services Departmental Complaints Manager. Stage 3 complaints would be processed and dealt with by the County Secretary. He stated that during 2004 / 2005 the Library Service had received 390 stage 1 complaints with only 19 stage 2 complaints with only 1 or 2 complaints being received each week. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in establishing a centralised complaints unit to handle all complaints made against the Council, he felt that this would be detrimental as local handling of complaints generally produced a better outcome.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 5 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______

e) Caroline Cook – Children, Schools & Families Department

Caroline Cook advised that her team dealt with the initial assessment of care for children with special needs in the East Region of Hertfordshire. The nature of complaints handled tended to centre on the level of care proposed to be given and child protection action taken. She stated that when concerns were raised by the public / parents / carers, they would be sent information including the complaints booklet. In response to a question she stated that complaints did not tend to come in from children but rather from their carers. She felt that the complaints booklet was not child friendly. It was noted that the Council used to have a complaints booklet written specifically for children. In response to a question as to whether there would be benefit in establishing a centralised complaints unit to handle all complaints made against the Council, she felt that the concept sounded beneficial as current CSF staff resources were stretched and there were often difficulties in getting hold of managers to conclude investigations into complaints. She felt that the involvement of the Conciliation and Appeals Unit within the CSF Department in investigating complainant gave a perception of independence of considering complaints made. In response to a question, she stated that many complainants were made aware of local organisations that they call on for assistance in making complaints and some did contact, Citizens Advice Bureaux, POhWER or Shelter, in respect of housing issues in making complaints. In response to a question she stated that many of the complaints which went to stage 2 tended to relate to delays that had occurred in providing adequate care.

The Topic Group considered that there was a need for consistency in determining what constituted a complaint especially in respect of road / highway works and that details of local area Highways offices should be contained within the Environment Department Complaints Booklets. The Topic Group discussed the merits of senior managers rather than front line staff dealing with complaints supported by local MPs and / or local County Councillors.

The Panel felt that there should be uniformity within the Complaints booklets issued by the various County Council Departments and that there was a need to consider producing a young persons booklet especially for Children, Schools & Families Services.

4. EVIDENCE FROM DEPARTMENTAL COMPLAINTS MANAGERS

The Topic Group agreed that in order to provide adequate time to thoroughly interview Departmental Complaints Managers, this should be undertaken at the next meeting on 22 March 2006 at 2pm, if convenient to Complaints Managers.

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 6 MEMORANDUM 15 March 2006 ______5. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETINGS a) Next Meeting on 22 March 2006 at 2pm

b) Future Meetings The Topic Group agreed that a further meeting be held on Thursday 20 April 2006 at 10 am and if required, a subsequent meeting be held on Wednesday 26 April 2006 at 2pm.

Andrew Laycock County Secretary

D:\Docs\2018-05-05\03c00ce7efd14449a2ca3586878d589e.doc 7