Responsive and Accountable? The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling by government departments and public bodies 2010-11

‘Public services should be  accountable to users and taxpayers… they must be responsive to the people they serve – held to  account by citizens and their  elected representatives.’

Open Public Services White Paper

Responsive and Accountable? The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling by government departments and public bodies 2010-11

Ninth report  of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Session 2010-12 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4)  of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 24 October 2011 HC 1551 London: The Stationery Office £15.50 Our role Excellence Integrity The Parliamentary and Health We pursue excellence in all that We are open, honest and Service Ombudsman considers we do in order to provide the straightforward in all our dealings, complaints that government best possible service: and use time, money and departments, a range of other • we seek feedback to achieve resources effectively: public bodies in the UK, and learning and continuous • we are consistent and the NHS in England, have not improvement transparent in our actions acted properly or fairly or have • we operate thorough and and decisions provided a poor service. rigorous processes to reach • we take responsibility for our sound, evidence-based actions and hold ourselves Our vision judgments accountable for all that we do To provide an independent, high • we are committed to enabling • we treat people fairly. quality complaint handling service and developing our people that rights individual wrongs, so that they can provide an Diversity drives improvements in public excellent service. We value people and their services and informs public policy. diversity and strive to be inclusive: Leadership • we respect others, regardless Our values We lead by example so that our of personal differences Our values shape our behaviour, work will have a positive impact: • we listen to people to both as an organisation and as • we set high standards for understand their needs and individuals, and incorporate the ourselves and others tailor our service accordingly Ombudsman’s Principles. • we are an exemplar and • we promote equal access to provide expert advice in our service for all members complaint handling of the community. • we share learning to achieve improvement.

© Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2011) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context.

The material must be acknowledged as Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and is also available from our website at www.ombudsman.org.uk

ISBN: 9780102975116 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002459669 10/11 Printed on paper containing 75 per cent recycled fibre content minimum. The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Contents

Foreword 2

How we work 4

Sharing information and learning from complaints 6

Our survey of government complaint handling 8

The financial cost of poor complaint handling 14

Case studies 16

Overview of complaints to the Ombudsman 2010-11 26

Government departments and public bodies complaint handling performance 2010-11 32

Looking to the future 42

Appendix 45

1 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Foreword

their experience of interacting one and four stages of a with a public service by making complaint procedure before a complaint. It also means ‘local resolution’ was completed opportunities to improve public and the complainant could services through complaint bring their complaint to the handling are being missed. Ombudsman. Unfortunately for both the complainant and the ‘Public bodies should ensure public purse, the value added their complaints procedure is by these multiple stages can be simple and clear, involving as difficult to detect. The stories in This is my first report on the few steps as possible.’ this report bring such examples complaint handling performance Principles of Good into the spotlight. They show of government departments Complaint Handling the toll that overly-bureaucratic and other public bodies within complaints procedures can take my jurisdiction. Unlike other It is clear from the information on individuals. reports published by my Office, in this report, and the evidence which usually highlight serious or from our casework generally, that ‘Public bodies should have systemic failings of administration if a member of the public wants systems to record, analyse and or complaint handling in individual to complain about the service report on the learning from departments, this report presents they receive, they must embark complaints – and ensure that my perspective on complaint on a system for complaining that all feedback and lessons learnt handling across government. is unique to that department. from complaints contribute to service improvement.’ This report includes information I am not advocating a ‘one- Principles of Good from complaints about public size fits all’ system for handling Complaint Handling bodies made to my Office in complaints about government 2010-11, as well as individual case departments and other public The cost of maladministration is histories of failures by public bodies. Such an approach would borne by the public, collectively bodies experienced by members preclude flexible processes, and individually. As this report of the public and resolved by us designed to be relevant and shows, last year we secured during the year. It also includes accessible to the needs of over £360,000 in direct financial the results of a survey we their different customers. But remedies for complainants as a conducted into the different there is no shared view across result of poor administration or processes used by government government of the standard complaint handling. This figure departments and public bodies of complaint handling that does not reveal the cost in to respond to complaints. a member of the public can time and resource taken up reasonably expect. by lengthy and protracted Disappointingly, this report complaints systems or the reveals complaint handling across Our survey of government sometimes devastating human government to be inconsistent, complaint handling revealed a cost of the failure to put haphazard and unaccountable, plethora of different systems things right for individuals. operating without any overarching for handling complaints. The Nor does it include the cost of design, overall standards or government departments and lost opportunities to improve common performance framework. public bodies who responded to public services by learning from Such a situation is unhelpful for our survey required complainants feedback that is free to collect people who want to change to navigate anything between and readily available.

2 ‘ Good complaint handling requires strong and effective leadership. Those at the top of the public body should take the lead in ensuring good complaint handling, with regard to both the practice and the culture.’

Principles of Good Complaint Handling

The figure also excludes the external audit or similar scrutiny. To counter this, there needs £1.5 billion which in October 2010 As Ombudsman I consider to be a shared understanding the Government announced complaints that reach my Office, between the public, government would be available to compensate but I do not have the legal power and the Ombudsman about Equitable Life policyholders, to undertake systemic scrutiny on what constitutes good complaint following its agreement earlier my own initiative. So I do not have handling. The Ombudsman’s in the year to implement the the mandate or the mechanisms Principles of Good Complaint recommendation in my July 2008 to provide assurance on Handling are a good starting report on regulatory failure. complaint handling efficiency and point for government in the task effectiveness across government. of ensuring that all departments ‘Learning from complaints Neither does anyone else. share an understanding of is a powerful way of helping the importance of fairness, to improve public service, Complaints are a lens through transparency, and accountability. enhancing the reputation of which to judge the quality of But this will not evolve further a public body and increasing public services. They provide without strong leadership trust among the people who insight and learning, often from the top, committed to use its service.’ not available elsewhere, developing a culture across Principles of Good about the efficiency of public the civil service that values Complaint Handling services and the fairness and complaints. I hope that this proportionality with which they report provides an impetus The absence of any clear are administered. Above all, towards making this happen. methodology or machinery to complaints provide an insight share best practice, or ensure into the public’s interactions lessons from complaints are learnt with the state. At the moment, across government departments, this perspective is blurred by  increases the likelihood of the inconsistent and sometimes Ann Abraham same mistakes being repeated convoluted processes, and an Parliamentary Ombudsman again and again. absence of cross-government October 2011 information and accountability In terms of measuring and that makes complaints invisible improving performance, at national level. departmental complaint handling is not subject to any systematic

3 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

How we work

Our role is to consider Helping people complain Putting things right complaints that government We expect public bodies to have Public bodies should put departments, a range of other clear and simple procedures. mistakes right quickly and public bodies in the UK, and They should publish clear and effectively. They should the NHS in England have not complete information about acknowledge mistakes and acted properly or fairly or have how to complain and how and apologise where appropriate. provided a poor service. when to take complaints further. On 1,078 occasions last year, This report details the complaint On 5,590 occasions last year, we we were able to reassure the handling performance of referred the complainant back complainant that the public body government departments and to the public body concerned, concerned had already put things other public bodies in the UK in because they had not completed right, or that there was no case 2010-11. Complaints about these the body’s own complaints to answer. bodies must be referred to us procedure. Of those, 4,861 by a Member of Parliament (MP). complaints also came to us Where things have gone wrong, Last year, we resolved 7,569 without an MP referral. On 425 we ask public bodies to apologise complaints about such bodies. occasions the complainant chose and put things right quickly and not to progress their complaint effectively, without the need for We judge government further or did not obtain an  a formal investigation. Last year, departments and public bodies MP referral. 106 Parliamentary complaints against the standards for good were resolved this way, and administration and complaint 224 complaints were about issues a further 21 complaints were handling set out in full in the outside our remit. resolved when we provided the Ombudsman’s Principles. The complainant with an explanation Principles of Good Complaint about what had happened. Handling were published in November 2008. All the Principles are available on our website at  www.ombudsman.org.uk

4 Learning from complaints More information about the Lessons learnt from complaints numbers of complaints about should be used to improve government departments and ‘ Public bodies should public services. Where possible, public bodies received and provide clear, accurate the complainant should be resolved in 2010-11 can be found returned to the position they on pages 32-41. and complete would have been in if the information to their circumstances leading to the • In this report, we use the term complaint had not occurred. ‘public body’ to refer to any customers about the government organisation within scope of complaints We accepted 125 complaints for our jurisdiction. formal investigation and reported the organisation on 120 complaints investigated. • We use the term ‘government can consider, what If a complaint is upheld or partly department’ to refer to any upheld, we recommend actions public body that also has customers can and for the body in question to take responsibility for other bodies. cannot expect from to put things right and to learn from the complaint. We upheld the complaint handling or partly upheld 78 per cent of arrangements, parliamentary complaints and all our recommendations for action including timescales were accepted. and likely remedies and how, when and where to take things further.’

Principles of Good Complaint Handling

5 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Sharing information and learning from complaints

Throughout 2010-11 we worked The Ombudsman’s comments sit into a complaint by a woman with individual government within the context of the Coalition whose personal details had departments and public Government’s agenda for change. been incorrectly recorded on bodies to resolve complaints In July 2011, the Government a government database. As her and help put things right for published its Open Public Services details spread across the computer individuals and to share the White Paper, which sets out systems of three different public learning from our casework to proposals to expand the delivery bodies, she was unable to get them improve public services. We of public services to include a corrected, or to get any of the highlighted particular failings range of diverse providers from bodies involved to take the lead in identified by our casework the private and voluntary sectors. putting things right. Instead, they all through our regular contact with Describing the state as a ‘guarantor blamed each other and it took an Parliament, the Cabinet Office of standards’, the paper warns investigation by the Ombudsman and permanent secretaries, potential providers that unless to get them to accept their emphasising the importance of they can match or better the responsibilities, correct the mistake sharing learning from complaints Government’s minimum standards, and agree that cross-cutting issues across departmental boundaries. they will have no place in delivering would be addressed. public services. Sharing learning with Parliament As a result of that report, we asked In her evidence to the Public A recent report by PASC about the Cabinet Office to take the Administration Select these reforms, Change in lead in ensuring that the three Committee (PASC) in February Government: Agenda for agencies involved in that complaint 2011, the Ombudsman warned Leadership, echoed the work together to ensure that that at present there is no Ombudsman’s concerns about the complaints which involve more cross-government view of Government’s failure to overcome than one agency are handled in a what a good complaint handling departmental silos and to address coordinated way in future. Since system should look like. She said: ‘cross cutting issues’ across our investigation, Cabinet Secretary departmental boundaries. The Sir Gus O’Donnell has assured ‘Every week, another bit of report identifies the need for the us that guidance on handling government comes and asks civil service to develop its capability cross-cutting complaints has been us to have a look at some to contract and commission implemented by the departments changes they are making services from the voluntary and concerned and that a protocol has to their complaints system private sectors and we would been developed for all government and whether we think this expect this capability to include departments to implement when fits with the Principles of setting clear and transparent sharing personal data. Good Complaint Handling. standards for complaint handling. All this work is going on in Sharing learning with compartments, in different Sharing learning with government departments and public bodies bits of government, with no Had such standards existed across Recently we came to the end of a overarching sense of who and departments, at least one of lengthy and complex investigation where is the design authority the investigations we published into the Ministry of Defence’s for complaint-handling this year would not have been (MoD) treatment of one family systems in government.1’ needed. A Breach of Confidence who were interned by the Japanese tells the story of our investigation during the Second World War.

1. Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration Select Committee, 9 February 2011.

6 ‘ The worst example I have seen, in nearly nine years as Parliamentary Ombudsman, of a government department getting things wrong and then repeatedly failing to put things right or learn from its mistakes.’

Defending the Indefensible, Ann Abraham

Described by the Ombudsman In our meetings with HM Revenue gone wrong. We met with the as ‘required reading for every & Customs (HMRC), we have Chief Executive of Cafcass to aspiring senior civil servant’, witnessed a clear commitment explore what lay behind those Defending the Indefensible to improve the experience of complaints. As a result of our tells the story of repeated and people claiming tax credits. investigations, which showed compounded failure by the MoD That commitment has been Cafcass were failing to get the to get things right, despite a demonstrated through HMRC’s basics of good complaint handling previous ‘upheld’ investigation willingness to engage with us as right, they have made complaint by the Ombudsman, criticism soon as we identify signs of failure handling one of their top five from PASC and adverse findings or poor service, enabling us to organisational priorities for the by the courts. The circumstances resolve complaints quickly and months ahead. We continue to leading to the recent publication without the need for an in-depth work with Cafcass on this issue. of Defending the Indefensible investigation. We have been able highlight how much work is needed to achieve prompt and effective In one particular case our to ensure that learning from resolution on a number of cases investigation has led to wide complaints is embedded within and ensured that any learning from ranging improvements for the departmental processes and we the cases we have considered is service provided to vulnerable welcomed the MoD’s commitment fed back to HMRC. people. Jobcentre Plus took to launch its own review of what action on our recommendations went so wrong, for so long. During 2010-11, we received and following an investigation into accepted for investigation a higher the experiences of a vulnerable In her evidence to Parliament in number of complaints about the woman who was struggling to February, the Ombudsman Children and Family Court resolve her complaint with them. explained that when mistakes had Advisory and Support Service As a result of our investigation, been made the opportunity to put (Cafcass) than previously. The featured on page 25, Jobcentre things right quickly and to learn complainants told us that Cafcass Plus have changed their definition from feedback immediately and in had not considered their of ‘vulnerable’; they plan to ‘real-time’ was key to improving complaints in accordance with identify ‘district champions’ for public services. We have worked their complaints policy, or with vulnerable clients; and they are directly with departments and reference to their guidance for working to improve how and public bodies to improve their staff and organisational standards. when they identify clients who capacity to learn from feedback They also told us that Cafcass had need people to act on their and put things right swiftly for not put matters right, even when behalf when dealing with them. individual complainants. they acknowledged things had

7 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Our survey of government complaint handling

From our casework we know dedicated complaints function and stage. Only two of the government that public bodies have very complaints were responded to by a departments that responded to different complaints systems. In general enquiry or correspondence our survey said they had, or were order to help compile a picture team. Generally, each additional developing, specific complaints of the different ways government stage represented an escalation guidance for their public bodies, departments and public bodies of the complaint within the public and only one other used meetings handle complaints, we wrote to body where staff of increasing and other actions to help ensure the permanent secretaries of the seniority looked at the complaint. consistency in complaint handling 35 ministerial and non-ministerial Across all the government across all the public bodies they government departments within departments and public bodies were responsible for. In some cases, our jurisdiction. We asked we surveyed, there were people complaints procedures can be them to tell us whether their in over thirty different job roles further complicated by conditions department provided guidance who were involved in looking at being placed on whether a stage of about complaint handling to the complaints – from enquiry team the complaints procedure can be public bodies they sponsored, members and complaints managers accessed. Several public bodies do whether they or their public to directors, quality assurance this including Cafcass, the Charity bodies used an arms length managers and heads of business Commission and the Driver and complaint handler, and the to chief executives, independent Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). reasons why they used the panels and chairs. Often, complainants are not aware system they did. We received that their access to the next stage responses from 25 departments We discovered that in some of a complaints procedure can and obtained information for cases there was little consistency be conditional. more than 100 public bodies, between the complaints from Jobcentre Plus to the procedures of public bodies for For 28 public bodies who Office of Rail Regulation. which one government department responded to our survey, the was responsible. For example, last stage of their complaints The responses revealed the the Department for Business, procedure is a review by an differing approaches to handling Innovation and Skills, which has a arms length complaint handler, complaints across a range of public three stage complaints procedure, is contracted by the public body bodies. The differences between responsible for both the Insolvency to provide an independent view. them include the number of stages Service, which has a four stage Thirteen different arms length in the complaints process, the role complaints procedure, and the complaints handlers were being and job titles of staff involved in Skills Funding Agency, whose used by the public bodies who responding to complaints, and the complaints procedure is just one responded to our survey. They use of independent, or arms length, complaint handlers. ‘ Public bodies should ensure their complaints When we looked at the public bodies’ complaints processes more procedure is simple and clear, involving as few closely we found that they required steps as possible. Having too many complaint complainants to navigate anything between one and four stages of a handling stages may unnecessarily complicate the complaint procedure before local process and deter complainants from pursuing resolution was completed and the complainant could bring their their concerns.’ complaint to us. Most of the public bodies with one stage had no Principles of Good Complaint Handling

8 ‘ [The Adjudicator’s work] allows us to maintain relationships with customers that are not tainted by unsatisfactorily resolved complaints. The Adjudicator also provides us with constructive criticism and feedback and actively seeks to help us learn lessons from complaints so that we can improve our services for all customers in the future.’

Dame Lesley Strathie, Chief Executive, HM Revenue & Customs

have different criteria and access complaint handler told us that to their needs, rather than providing a arrangements, and only two do so would not be an effective common approach for the benefit departments appeared to have use of funds. Some of them of the public. a consistent approach whereby pointed out that this was because all the public bodies they were they received low numbers of For an individual member of the responsible for used the same  complaints. This was often because public, who wants to complain arms length complaint handler in they did not provide a service about the service they have the same way. directly to the public. Others said received from one, or more, that they were satisfied with their public bodies, such a multitude of We asked government ability to review each complaint different systems adds to confusion departments why they, or their themselves and that there were or frustration, as the diagram on public bodies, used arms length few requests for complaints to  the following pages shows. This complaint handlers. Most told be escalated. confusion and frustration is also us that an arms length complaint demonstrated by the fact that handler is trusted by customers The systems that public bodies nearly three quarters of people to be impartial, even handed have in place for handling who complain to the Ombudsman and to offer a detailed review complaints will depend on their do so too soon, before they of the complaint. Government own circumstances. However, have completed a public body’s departments also told us that certain principles should be own complaints procedure. The arms length complaint handlers common across government, reasons people most commonly were able to act as a critical friend including keeping complaints give for bringing their complaint and provide useful feedback processes clear, simple and easy to to us include ‘going straight to the and learning. One government access, focused on customers and top’, ‘wanting a quick result’ and department told us that being able outcomes and operating to clearly ‘a loss of confidence’ in the public to learn from complaints in this way defined standards. body. Other people are incorrectly makes good economic sense. signposted to our service as the The results of our survey reveal a next stage of the procedure, or are In contrast, most of the plethora of complaints systems, otherwise misinformed about the government departments that mainly developed by the individual procedure to follow. did not engage an arms length departments and bodies to suit

9 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaint handling systems across government Our survey suggested there were a wide range of complaints systems in use across government. To understand how this might appear to a member of the public wanting to complain, we looked at the information available on a small sample selection of public bodies’ websites. The results are shown in the chart below.

Department Public body (where applicable) Stage 1

Department for Business, Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Other Senior Officer Ombudsman Innovation and Skills Team Department for Business, Insolvency Service Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Innovation and Skills Senior Officer Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Communities Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Ombudsman and Local Government Senior Officer Team Department for Communities Planning Inspectorate Central Complaints Ombudsman and Local Government Team Department for Environment, Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Food & Rural Affairs Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Environment, Rural Payments Agency Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Ombudsman Food & Rural Affairs Team Department for Transport Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Transport Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Transport Highways Agency Front Line† Staff Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman complaints handler Department for Work and Pensions Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Other Manager/ Ombudsman Senior Officer Senior Officer Department for Work and Pensions Child Support Agency Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus Front Line† Staff Other Manager/ Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler HM Revenue & Customs Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler HM Revenue & Customs Valuation Office Agency Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer Team complaints handler Home Office Central Complaints Other Manager/ Ombudsman Team Senior Officer Home Office UK Border Agency Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler Ministry of Justice Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Other Manager/ Ombudsman Team Senior Officer Ministry of Justice HM Courts and Tribunals Service Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Ombudsman Senior Officer Team

† ‘Front line’ is given as the first stage for public should first put their concern to the member of bodies who specifically state this to be the first staff they had been dealing with. This is even if the stage of their complaint procedure. It is also used public body does not treat that as the first stage of where public bodies tell the public that they its formal complaints procedure.

10 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Department for Business, Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Other Senior Officer Ombudsman Innovation and Skills Team Department for Business, Insolvency Service Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Innovation and Skills Senior Officer Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Communities Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Ombudsman and Local Government Senior Officer Team Department for Communities Planning Inspectorate Central Complaints Ombudsman and Local Government Team Department for Environment, Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Food & Rural Affairs Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Environment, Rural Payments Agency Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Ombudsman Food & Rural Affairs Team Department for Transport Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Transport Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler Department for Transport Highways Agency Front Line† Staff Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman complaints handler Department for Work and Pensions Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Other Manager/ Ombudsman Senior Officer Senior Officer Department for Work and Pensions Child Support Agency Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus Front Line† Staff Other Manager/ Chief Executive Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer complaints handler HM Revenue & Customs Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler HM Revenue & Customs Valuation Office Agency Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Senior Officer Team complaints handler Home Office Central Complaints Other Manager/ Ombudsman Team Senior Officer Home Office UK Border Agency Central Complaints Central Complaints Arms length Ombudsman Team Team complaints handler Ministry of Justice Front Line† Staff Central Complaints Other Manager/ Ombudsman Team Senior Officer Ministry of Justice HM Courts and Tribunals Service Front Line† Staff Local Manager/ Central Complaints Ombudsman Senior Officer Team

11 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints handlers across government Our survey and our research of government websites shows there is a bewildering array of job titles for the staff involved in complaints handling processes across government. For any complainant this is confusing and frustrating, but for those whose complaint relates to more than one public body, it adds even greater complexity.

Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Complaints and Quality Commendations Assurance Co-ordinator Director Human Resources Complaints Manager Manager Customer Correspondence Team Director of Finance and Business Services Complaints Head of Business Unit Co-ordinator

Customer Services District Manager Team Manager Delivery Director Head of Information Management

12 Quality Manager Group Finance Chief Executive Director

Ministerial Complaints Correspondence User and Decisions Unit Review Team Personal Executive Case Committee Manager

Public Engagement and Recognition Head of Division Group Managing Unit Director Head of Corporate Services Independent Complaints Consultant Co-ordinator General Counsel

Contact Centre Customer Regional Chair Manager Complaints Coordinator

Director Consular Services

13 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

The financial cost of poor complaint handling

The tables below show how much and protracted complaints systems public bodies have spent in the within public bodies that have last year remedying complaints failed to resolve complaints that to the Ombudsman – a total of come to the Ombudsman, and £367,173.03. What those tables the cost to individuals’ lives of cannot show is the cost of lengthy unresolved issues.

Financial remedies secured through interventions2

Public Body Total Compliance items3 Child Support Agency £7,200.65 6 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service £600.00 3 Consumer Council for Water £200.00 1 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority £1,500.00 1 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency £35.60 1 Driving Standards Agency £50.00 1 HM Courts Service £5,209.22 22 HM Revenue & Customs £19,957.71 23 Jobcentre Plus £12,260.70 3 Rural Payments Agency £800.00 2 The Adjudicator’s Office £50.00 1 UK Border Agency £2,351.43 13 Total £50,215.31 77

2. There may be some financial remedies not included in this data where we have asked a public body to reimburse a cost or provide compensation on receipt of further information from the complainant once the case has been closed. 3. A remedy we have asked a government department or public body to provide to resolve a complaint and to which they have agreed.

14 ‘ There is little evidence that the costs of failing to get things right first time are fully understood and quantified by public bodies. Instead the focus tends to be on budgets rather than costs. The fact that some of the costs of poor decision making fall on different government departments, tribunals and ombudsmen mean that there are often no financial incentives to ensure that decisions  are right first time...’

Right First Time, Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, June 2011

Financial remedies secured through investigations

Public Body Total Recommendations Child Support Agency £92,213.59 17 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service £2,350.00 6 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority £89,087.00 6 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency £450.00 2 Equality and Human Rights Commission £250.00 1 General Social Care Council £7,000.00 2 HM Courts Service £1,850.00 4 HM Revenue & Customs £3,690.00 6 Independent Case Examiner £500.00 1 Jobcentre Plus £11,578.63 7 Land Registry £2,500.00 1 Legal Services Commission £32,255.00 2 National Offender Management Service £100.00 1 Rural Payments Agency £1,000.00 1 Skills Funding Agency £200.00 1 The Office of the Public Guardian £610.00 4 The Pension, Disability and Carers Service £356.84 2 UK Border Agency £70,966.66 26 Total £316,957.72 90

15 Case studies

Refusal to escalate a complaint

Mr R, who lives in the Bristol area, be referred to the fourth stage, had been experiencing difficulties DVLA’s Independent Complaints arranging an inspection of his Assessor. The Chief Executive of vehicle by the Driver and Vehicle DVLA refused his request, saying Licensing Agency (DVLA) prior to that they had handled his case registering it. After his vehicle was appropriately. Mr R was not aware impounded by the police because that the Chief Executive could it was not taxed (it could not be do that and complained to taxed unless it was registered), the Ombudsman. Mr R complained to DVLA. Mr R pursued his complaint through We partly upheld the complaint. the three stages of DVLA’s internal We found that DVLA had been complaints process, the third maladministrative in their handling stage of which was a complaint of Mr R’s case. We also found to the Chief Executive. Unhappy that they should have allowed with the responses he received, Mr R’s complaint to progress to the he then asked for his complaint to Independent Complaints Assessor.

16 Refused to consider the complaint further

Ms B, who lives in London, her she was wrong. She said that complained that Children and she had been denied a voice. Family Court Advisory and After a meeting and a written Support Service (Cafcass) had not response, Ms B asked to have her responded appropriately to her complaint considered at stage two complaint. Ms B’s complaint was of Cafcass’s procedure. Cafcass about her concerns that a report refused to consider the complaint written by Cafcass for court did at stage two. Ms B told us that she not reflect that she was a victim of was distressed that Cafcass had domestic violence. The report was not given her a voice. She felt that for the purpose of deciding her they shut down her complaint and ex-partner’s access arrangements she didn’t understand how they with her son. She said that the could ignore so much of it. member of staff who compiled the report was biased against We upheld Ms B’s complaint. her, viewing her as exacting and We found that Cafcass had not anxious and the cause of the answered Ms B’s concerns at stage abuse she suffered. She said that one of their complaints procedure there appeared to be a serious lack when they should have and had not of understanding by the member considered their actions against of staff about what domestic their policy and guidance. They abuse was. Ms B said she was so then, incorrectly, did not allow ‘terrified’ by the Cafcass report Ms B to complain further through that she decided to employ a their complaints procedure. barrister for the hearing so that Cafcass agreed to consider Ms B’s she could challenge the report, complaint again in accordance with which she did successfully. Ms B their procedures, to apologise, and complained to Cafcass, who have pay her £250 for the upset they a three stage procedure. Ms B felt had caused her. Ms B later wrote that her complaint had not been to us to confirm that Cafcass had listened to and that Cafcass had reinvestigated her complaint and reframed it to make it something fully upheld it, a resolution she was it was not, so that they could tell happy with.

17 18 A mistake that cost one woman her home

Mrs J, who lived in London, made problems. Mrs J had to call the We upheld the complaint. a witness statement during a police on a number of occasions. Jobcentre Plus had already fraud investigation that Jobcentre She described her experience acknowledged their error but we Plus and the local authority as one of ‘living in fear, hell found that there was no reason to were pursuing into one of Mrs and anxiety’. think that Mrs J’s life would not J’s neighbours. Even though Mrs have continued as normal had J was assisting Jobcentre Plus, Mrs J approached Jobcentre Plus Jobcentre Plus not disclosed her at no benefit to herself, they and, although they took her witness statement. It was for did not keep her statement or, complaint seriously and paid her Jobcentre Plus to return Mrs J to a most importantly, her identity, £750 in compensation, they told position where she could continue confidential (as they had promised her they were not responsible for normal life which, in the her they would do). Because her her neighbour’s actions and told circumstances, had to be in a new identity was disclosed, Mrs J was her to contact the police. home. We recommended that then threatened and had stones Jobcentre Plus work with the thrown at her windows; she was Mrs J saw no option but to move council to ensure that Mrs J was followed and her children were home. But she could not do so moved to another property.  bullied at school. Her children because she was a council tenant We also recommended that changed schools and had to and did not satisfy the criteria for a Jobcentre Plus pay Mrs J’s commute for two hours a day. transfer. When she approached us relocation costs and £6,000 in she said her life was on hold until recognition of the impact their Mrs J’s mental health declined; she she could move. She was frightened actions had on Mrs J and her had to see a psychologist and she for her own safety and for that of children. Mrs J thanked us for our became reluctant to leave her her children. Mrs J said she was help and told us: ‘This part of our house. Her relationship with one ‘ashamed and angry about having life … will always have a deep of her children suffered and he signed the statement and would mark in my kids’ memory.’ also developed psychological never do it again…’

19 Getting it wrong, twice

Mrs Q, from Wales, telephoned the Public Guardian admitted the Office of the Public Guardian’s that Mrs Q was probably given helpline in July 2009 because she incorrect information by the was not sure when she could helpline. Despite that, they only register her father’s Enduring offered to pay her £40. The Office Power of Attorney (EPA). EPAs of the Public Guardian told us that must be registered with the Office they thought that their offer was of the Public Guardian before they proportionate to the error they can be used. Mrs Q was told by had made. the helpline that her father did not need to be incapable of managing We upheld Mrs Q’s complaint. We his affairs before she could were concerned that the Office register his EPA. Mrs Q therefore of the Public Guardian argued that applied for her father’s EPA to be the financial remedy they offered registered and paid the £120 fee, Mrs Q was proportionate to their but the application was refused error, rather than to the injustice because her father was not yet caused by the error. The injustice incapable of managing his own was that Mrs Q lost £120 when, as a affairs. Mrs Q was subsequently result of incorrect information, she told that the fee would not be tried to register her father’s EPA at refunded to her, even though the the wrong time. We recommended application was refused. Mrs Q that the Office of the Public complained to the Office of the Guardian pay Mrs Q £250 to cover Public Guardian. Their complaints the lost fee of £120 and to recognise procedure directs complaints the frustration and anger their first to the staff dealing with the error, and their failure to put it right, matter and then to the central caused Mrs Q at a difficult time. complaints team. The Office of

20 Two similar complaints, two different outcomes

Mr S, from Surrey, received a Mr S had quite a different summons to a court hearing, but experience from another HM Courts Service (HMCS) did not complainant who brought a tell him what it was about. When complaint about HMCS to the Mr S contacted them about it Ombudsman – a firm of solicitors they still did not tell him what the from Chester who were the hearing was for. Worried about claimants in a hearing that the what might happen, Mr S engaged defendant did not attend. The a solicitor. That turned out to be defendant said that the court had unnecessary because the case was not sent him the summons. The dismissed as trivial. Mr S sought court accepted they had made his solicitor’s fees from HMCS and an error and relisted the case.  they offered him £605.50. The solicitors had to attend a further hearing. When we intervened, HMCS thought that they had offered HM Courts Service offered to pay Mr S too much – this was an amount that was equivalent to incorrect. We met with HMCS the costs incurred in unnecessarily and explained how they should attending a hearing. We provided approach the calculation. HMCS reassurance to the solicitors then calculated that they owed that their complaint had been Mr S £863. They also agreed to pay handled well. him £200 for the inconvenience  they had caused him.

21 Inaction and delay prevented one man from working

Mr P, from London, had a right was being considered. However, intervention led to UKBA approving to live and work in the UK. In they did not make a decision on  Mr P’s application but UKBA did not January 2009, to prove that to his application. tell Mr P that they had done that. potential employers, Mr P applied Without proof of his right to work, to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) Mr and Mrs P told us that by late Mr P’s employers decided they for a residence card. It usually 2009 Mrs P had started to suffer could no longer employ him and he takes a maximum of six months for from depression due to the stress was escorted from their premises UKBA to consider an application and uncertainty of not knowing by security guards. Mr P told us he for a residence card. In April 2009, if Mr P’s application would be found that experience humiliating. Mr P found a job in London and approved. By 2010 Mr P said he and It was 17 June 2010 – more than a his employer asked UKBA if Mr P his wife felt like they were falling year after he had applied for it – could work while his application apart. Mr P continued to chase before Mr P’s solicitors received his for a residence card was being UKBA about his application and he residence card. Mr P returned to considered. UKBA told Mr P’s complained again to the customer work the next day. employers that Mr P could work, services department. He received but to check again in 12 months’ another apology and was again We upheld the complaint. We time. Mr P started work. assured that his application would found that UKBA had done be dealt with. Mrs P wrote another absolutely nothing to progress  By August 2009, Mr P’s application letter of complaint, but again Mr P’s application for more than had still not been approved. Mr P nothing happened. nine months. We recommended contacted UKBA, by telephone that they should apologise to  and letter, to enquire about his In May 2010, as instructed by Mr P, pay his legal costs and application. He complained to the UKBA, Mr P’s employers again make him a payment of £500 in customer services department  checked whether Mr P could work. recognition of the inconvenience, and his MP wrote on his behalf.  UKBA said Mr P could not work embarrassment, frustration and In response, UKBA apologised for while his application was being distress they had caused him. the delay and confirmed that Mr P decided. When Mr P found out he  could work while his application instructed solicitors. The solicitors’

22 23 24 Improving services for vulnerable adults

Ms N is a very vulnerable adult, The community did not find had been deprived of £3,500 as a living in Edinburgh. She has learning out Ms N’s income support result of Jobcentre Plus’s mistake. disabilities, severe emotional had been stopped because problems, and cannot manage many Jobcentre Plus had, incorrectly, We identified where things had areas of her life. Since 1982, Ms N recorded that she did not need an gone wrong and recommended has been a resident of a community appointee (someone who acts as that Jobcentre Plus pay Ms N  that offers opportunities for a representative in dealings with the money she was owed.  people with learning disabilities. Jobcentre Plus). We also recommended that Ms N received support from they should make a plan to avoid her community to manage her It took a year and a half for making the same mistakes again. financial affairs. With their help she Jobcentre Plus to explain how to Jobcentre Plus later confirmed had been in receipt of benefits, get Ms N’s benefit reinstated, which that they had complied with including income support, on which she did, with support. Then, despite our recommendations and they she depended since 1995. two successful tribunal hearings, told us about their plan. The a complaint to Jobcentre Plus and plan included actions that went When Ms N moved from another to the Independent Case beyond our recommendations one residential site within the Examiner, Ms N’s income support and beyond putting things right for community to another, was not backdated to the date it had Ms N. This should help to ensure Jobcentre Plus inexplicably been stopped. When her case was that vulnerable people like Ms N stopped her income support. brought to the Ombudsman, Ms N receive a better service in future.

25 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Overview of complaints to the Ombudsman 2010-11

Here we report on the On 425 occasions, the complainant providing a further explanation complaints we received about chose not to progress their about what had happened. government departments and complaint further or we did not We accepted 125 complaints for public bodies and how they hear from them again after we  formal investigation and reported were resolved. Further on, we had told them that they had to  on 1205 complaints investigated, give more details about the put their complaint to us through of which 78 per cent were upheld complaints we received about an MP. or partly upheld. individual public bodies and departments. We gave advice on 224 The most common reason complaints that were not in our complainants gave us for being In 2010-11 we received 7,360 remit and signposted people to unhappy with a public body’s Parliamentary complaints and the correct organisation to complaint handling was that they continued work on 568 complaints complain to, where possible. had provided an inadequate we carried over from 2009-10. financial remedy. For 1,078 complaints we reassured We resolved 7,5694 complaints the complainant that there was and carried over 359 into 2011-12. no case for the public body to answer, or we explained how the 5,590 complaints were made to body had already put things right. us before the public body had done all they could to respond; We achieved a swift resolution in 4,861 of those had also not been 127 complaints by helping to put made through an MP, as the law things right without the need for requires. We gave the people a formal investigation. We making those complaints advice resolved 106 of those complaints about how to complain to the by intervening directly with the public body and how to complain public body complained about, to us again if they were not and in a further 21 complaints we satisfied with the response. provided the remedy ourselves by

4. The number of complaints resolved is greater than the number of complaints received because some complaints were carried over from the last business year. 5. The number of complaints reported on is different from the number accepted for investigation because  some investigations were not completed in the year and others from the previous year were reported on.

26

7,360 7,5694 complaints received complaints resolved

127 106 125 complaints interventions complaints resolved through accepted for formal swift resolution investigation including...

1205 78% investigated of investigated complaints complaints upheld reported on or partly upheld

27 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Reasons for complaints

Figure 1 Issues raised in complaints about public bodies6 2010-11

Misdirection/misinterpreting/giving wrong advice 5% Income tax 4% Child support 6% Complaints Other tax 3% service 4% Tax credits 12% Incapacity/disability 4% Inadequate official information (written) 3% Legal aid 3% Immigration 4%

Asylum 4% Regulation 3% Courts 8%

Figure 1 shows the most common reasons for complaints. Some complaints cover a range of different issues. The most complained about issues were tax credits, the courts and child support.

6. The keywords in figures 1 and 2 reflect the issues raised by complainants. We assign keywords to complaints that are not taken forward at the Ombudsman’s discretion or because they are premature. Complaints which are taken forward for investigation are assigned further keywords according to the issues we identify when investigating the complaint.

28 Figure 2 Issues raised about complaint handling6 2010-11

No acknowledgement of mistakes 6% Failure to act in accordance with law and relevant guidance 11% Poor explanation 6% Inadequate financial

Communication with complainant unhelpful, ineffective, remedy 22% disrespectful 4% Focus on process not outcomes 8% Unnecessary delay 6% Failure to understand the complaint and Response not evidence based 4% outcome sought by complainant 6% Factual errors in response to complaint 4%

Figure 2 shows the most common reasons why people complained to us about the way the public body had dealt with their complaint. Receiving an inadequate financial remedy was the most common reason why people were unhappy with the way their complaint has been handled.

29 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaint outcomes

Figure 3 Intervention outcomes 2010-11

Action to remedy (putting things right) 46

Compensation payment: inconvenience/distress 34 Apology 28

Compensation payment: financial loss 25 Remittance of overpayment 19

Systemic remedy: lessons learnt (action plan) 2

Advance payment of maintenance 1

Systemic remedy: changes to policy or procedure 1

7 156 Total

The outcomes we secured through our In 106 complaints last year we resolved the matter interventions included apologies, compensation by working with the complainant and the public and securing changes to prevent the same problem body to reach a swift and satisfactory conclusion occurring again. without the need for a formal investigation. Here, the most common outcome was that the public body took action to put things right for the complainant, accounting for 46 of 156 outcomes.

7. Where a complaint is resolved there may be more than one outcome, for example, an apology and a compensation payment. This is why the total number of outcomes is greater than the number of complaints resolved by intervention or through investigation.

30 Figure 4 Investigation outcomes 2010-11

Apology 87

Compensation payment: inconvenience/distress 64

Compensation payment: financial loss 26

Action to remedy (putting things right) 22

Systemic remedy: lessons learnt (action plan) 14

Systemic remedy: changes to policy or procedure 5

Systemic remedy: staff training 2

7 220 Total

The outcomes we secured through our We upheld or partly upheld 78 per cent of the investigations included apologies, compensation 120 complaints we reported on. We made and securing changes to prevent the same  220 recommendations, 87 of which were problem occurring again. for an apology and a total of 90 were for financial compensation. 100 per cent of our recommendations were accepted.

31 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Government departments and public bodies complaint handling performance 2010-11

This section provides more Sometimes, the number of detailed information about the complaints about a government complaint handling performance department may be greater than of individual government the total number of complaints departments and public bodies. about the bodies it sponsors. This is because we may have received Government departments act complaints about the government as sponsors for different public department or a service it provides bodies. For example, in 2010-11 directly to the public. Jobcentre Plus was a sponsored body of the Department for A full list of all the departments, Work and Pensions and the UK and their public bodies, which we Border Agency was sponsored received complaints about during by the Home Office. Where the year is available in the appendix. we receive a complaint about a public body, we record it under Complaints can provide an early its body name. The top ten public warning of failures in service bodies with the most complaints delivery. But a small number received, complaints resolved of complaints received does by intervention, and complaints not necessarily mean a better accepted for investigation are performance. Some public listed in the following pages. bodies have more customers and provide more services than others, Also listed are complaints statistics resulting in more complaints to the by government department. Each Ombudsman. Alternatively, fewer of these figures includes the number complaints about a public body of complaints for the bodies that could mean that there is insufficient the department sponsors. information provided to customers about how to complain.

32 ‘ When things have gone wrong, public bodies should explain themselves fully and say what they will do to put matters right as quickly as possible.’

Principles of Good Complaint Handling

33 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints received

Figure 5 Complaints received by government departments8, 9 2010-11

Department for Work and Pensions 2,462 HM Revenue & Customs 1,671 Ministry of Justice 924 Home Office 800 Department for Transport 336 Department for Education 210 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 159 Department for Communities and Local Government 137 Department of Health 136 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 128 Arms length complaints handlers10 118 Department of Energy and Climate Change 67 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 51 Ministry of Defence 39 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 28 Government Equalities Office 22 HM Treasury 15 Cabinet Office 13 Northern Ireland Office 4 Department for International Development 1 8. These figures also include complaints about the bodies that the department sponsors. 9. A further 39 complaints were unattributed to a government department. 10. An organisation or person contracted by the government department or public body to independently consider complaints.

34 Figure 6 Top ten public bodies by complaints received 2010-11

HM Revenue & Customs 1,219

Jobcentre Plus 1,036

UK Border Agency 638

Child Support Agency 625

The Pension, Disability and Carers Service 411 The Adjudicator’s Office 352

HM Courts Service 305

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 221 Independent Case Examiner 208

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 178

35 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Interventions

Figure 7 Interventions by government department 2010-11

Home Office 37

HM Revenue & Customs 23

Ministry of Justice 20

Department for Work and Pensions 12 Department for Education 5

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 4 Department for Transport 2

Department for Communities and Local Government 1

Department for Culture, Media and Sport 1

Office of Communications (Ofcom) 1

Where we can, we resolve complaints quickly and This reflects our recent work with them to simply by intervening to secure an outcome that improve complaint handling. is satisfactory for everyone. Last year, we achieved a total of 59 interventions with the UK Border Agency and HM Revenue & Customs, more than all the other public bodies put together.

36 Figure 8 Top ten public bodies by intervention 2010-11

UK Border Agency 37 HM Revenue & Customs 22 HM Courts Service 16 Child Support Agency 8 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 5 Jobcentre Plus 4 Rural Payments Agency 2 British Library Board 1 Consumer Council for Water 1 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 1 Department for Communities and Local Government 1 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 1 Driving Standards Agency 1 Information Commissioner 1 National Offender Management Service 1 Natural England 1 Office of Communications (Ofcom) 1 The Adjudicator’s Office 1 Tribunals Service 1 For twelve bodies, there was one intervention. This generates a list of nineteen public bodies overall.

37 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints accepted for investigation

Figure 9 Complaints accepted for formal investigation by government department 2010-11

Ministry of Justice 35

Home Office 20

Department for Work and Pensions 18

Department for Environment, 13 Food and Rural Affairs HM Revenue & Customs 12

Department for Education 11

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 9 Department of Health 4

Department for Communities and Local Government 1 Government Equalities Office 1 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) 1

More than a quarter of the complaints we accepted about. Of these, only HM Courts Service was also for investigation were about the Ministry of among the ten public bodies we received the Justice. It is the sponsor body for the Legal Services most complaints about, suggesting we accepted Commission, HM Courts Service and the Office of proportionally higher numbers of complaints for the Public Guardian – three of the ten public bodies investigation about the Legal Services Commission we accepted the most complaints for investigation and the Office of the Public Guardian.

38 Figure 10 Complaints accepted for formal investigation by government department Top ten public bodies by complaints accepted for formal investigation 2010-11

UK Border Agency 19

Rural Payments Agency 13

Legal Services Commission 12

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 11 HM Courts Service 9

Child Support Agency 8

Independent Case Examiner 8

The Office of the Public Guardian 7

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 6 HM Revenue & Customs 6

39 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints reported on

Figure 11 Complaints investigated and reported on by government department 2010-11

Uphold Number of complaints reported on rate

Department for Work and Pensions 36 72% Home Office 26 92% Ministry of Justice 24 79% HM Revenue & Customs 17 59% Department for Education 9 89% Department for Transport 3 67% Department of Health 2 100%

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 100%

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 1 100% Government Equalities Office 1 100%

We upheld 100 per cent of complaints about a complaints investigated partly or fully upheld, the number of departments and public bodies although Department for Transport and the Department for often the numbers of complaints involved are very Work and Pensions with 67 per cent and 72 per cent small. The departments with the lowest uphold rate respectively. were HM Revenue & Customs, with 59 per cent of

40 Figure 12 Complaints investigated and reported on by government department Top ten public bodies by complaints investigated and reported on 2010-11

Uphold Number of complaints reported on rate UK Border Agency 26 92% Child Support Agency 14 93% Independent Case Examiner 14 43% HM Revenue & Customs 10 60%

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 8 87% The Adjudicator’s Office 6 50% HM Courts Service 6 83% Jobcentre Plus 5 100%

The Office of the Public Guardian 5 100%

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 3 100% Land Registry 3 100%

The public bodies with the lowest uphold rates were For two bodies, there were three complaints arms length complaints handlers – we upheld or partly investigated and reported. This generates a list upheld 50 per cent of complaints investigated about of eleven bodies overall. the Adjudicator’s Office and 43 per cent about the Independent Case Examiner.

41 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Looking to the future

The Open Public Services unsatisfactory, providing little regularly to ask itself the question: White Paper says that ‘Good clarity for the public about what what are we doing differently as public services are one of the they can expect. a result of what we’ve learnt from foundation stones of a civilised getting things wrong? society’. It also says that the The public bodies within the Government’s aim is to make Ombudsman’s jurisdiction are It is also clear that government sure that everyone has access many and varied. The systems needs to have in place better and to the best public services – that they have in place for more extensive mechanisms for and that ‘the best becomes handling complaints will always sharing learning from complaints. better still’. need to depend on their own But if continuous improvement of circumstances. Yet as the provision public services is a serious aim, the The Public Administration Select of public services becomes further cultural barriers to reform will also Committee has described the decentralised, clear standards for need to be tackled. Government Government’s proposals for the complaint handling need to be needs to examine how ingrained in reform of public services as established – standards that users the civil service psyche is a closed, the most ambitious since the and commissioners can reference reactive, defensive response to Second World War. It has also in holding public service providers complaints; and how that can be said that, unless the Government to account. changed into an open, proactive can rapidly develop and response that encourages real implement a comprehensive plan Secondly, better use must be and sustained learning. We would for cross-departmental reform in made of the learning from welcome the opportunity to play Whitehall, its wider ambitions for complaints to drive improvements a part in this. There is no shortage public service reform will fail. in public services. Why is it that of material in the Ombudsman’s government repeatedly fails casebook to contribute to the civil So what needs to change? And to learn from getting things service learning agenda. what part can better complaint wrong? From the Ombudsman’s handling by government play in perspective, the answer is partly The picture revealed in this this transformation agenda? about governance, and partly report poses critical questions for about culture. Government as it takes forward First, it can help in improving the its programme for reform. In user’s experience of complaining This report highlights the the coming months, we hope to about public services. As a result need to strengthen the have the opportunity to engage of recent initiatives by the Scottish corporate performance with national leaders about these and Welsh Governments, the framework for government issues and to explore how a better users of devolved public services so that it has comprehensive, approach – and a better attitude – in Scotland and Wales now cross-departmental information to responding to complaints  have the benefit of common about the volumes, nature and could contribute to public  complaint handling standards outcomes of complaints – and service reform. across public services. But, as the associated costs. Without this report illustrates, the current this type of information readily approach for responding to available, a key indicator of the complaints about non-devolved quality of public services will be public services, and public services hidden from the view of national in England, is disjointed and leaders. Government also needs

42 ‘ As the provision of public services becomes further decentralised,  clear standards for complaint handling  need to be established.’

43 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11 Appendix

In this appendix we publish Public bodies are listed in information on complaints alphabetical order by their official received about public bodies name. They are listed individually, in 2010-11. rather than as a government department including its This includes: sponsored bodies.

• The number of complaints We record a public body as an received; ‘unknown body’ where someone asks us how to complain about a • The number of complaints public body but he or she is at such resolved through intervention; an early stage in the complaints process that they do not know, or • The number of complaints are unwilling to give us, the name accepted for formal investigation; of the public body. and

• The number of investigated complaints reported on and the percentage of those complaints which were fully upheld, partly upheld or not upheld.

45 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Adjudicator to HM Land Registry 5 0 0 0 – – – Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service 2 0 0 0 – – – Arts and Humanities Research Council 1 0 0 0 – – – Arts Council of England 2 0 0 0 – – – British Council 2 0 0 0 – – – British Library Board 4 1 0 0 – – – Business Link East Midlands 1 0 0 0 – – – Business Link North East 3 0 0 0 – – – Cabinet Office 13 0 0 0 – – – Care Quality Commission 45 0 0 0 – – – Charity Commission 12 0 0 0 – – – Child Benefit Office 59 0 0 0 – – – Child Support Agency 625 8 8 14 71% 21% 7% Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 178 5 11 8 75% 13% 13% Civil Aviation Authority 6 0 0 0 – – – Coal Authority 1 0 0 0 – – – Commission for Equality and Human Rights 22 0 1 1 100% 0% 0% Companies House 17 0 0 0 – – – Competition Commission 1 0 0 0 – – – Construction Industry Training Board 3 0 0 0 – – – Consumer Council for Water 21 1 0 0 – – – Consumer Focus 1 0 0 0 – – – Court Funds Office 2 0 0 0 – – – Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 18 1 1 3 100% 0% 0% Criminal Records Bureau 61 0 0 0 – – – Crown Estate Office 1 0 0 0 – – – Crown Prosecution Service (under Victims’ Code†) 3 0 0 0 – – – Debt Management Unit 22 0 0 0 – – – Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 51 0 6 0 – – – Department for Communities and Local Government 31 1 0 0 – – – Department for Culture, Media and Sport 4 0 0 0 – – – Department for Education 15 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 17 0 0 0 – – – Department for International Development 1 0 0 0 – – – Department for Transport 17 0 0 0 – – – Department for Work and Pensions 76 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% Department of Energy and Climate Change 67 0 0 0 – – –

†This public body is in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction only for complaints under the Victims’ Code. 46 Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Adjudicator to HM Land Registry 5 0 0 0 – – – Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service 2 0 0 0 – – – Arts and Humanities Research Council 1 0 0 0 – – – Arts Council of England 2 0 0 0 – – – British Council 2 0 0 0 – – – British Library Board 4 1 0 0 – – – Business Link East Midlands 1 0 0 0 – – – Business Link North East 3 0 0 0 – – – Cabinet Office 13 0 0 0 – – – Care Quality Commission 45 0 0 0 – – – Charity Commission 12 0 0 0 – – – Child Benefit Office 59 0 0 0 – – – Child Support Agency 625 8 8 14 71% 21% 7% Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service 178 5 11 8 75% 13% 13% Civil Aviation Authority 6 0 0 0 – – – Coal Authority 1 0 0 0 – – – Commission for Equality and Human Rights 22 0 1 1 100% 0% 0% Companies House 17 0 0 0 – – – Competition Commission 1 0 0 0 – – – Construction Industry Training Board 3 0 0 0 – – – Consumer Council for Water 21 1 0 0 – – – Consumer Focus 1 0 0 0 – – – Court Funds Office 2 0 0 0 – – – Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 18 1 1 3 100% 0% 0% Criminal Records Bureau 61 0 0 0 – – – Crown Estate Office 1 0 0 0 – – – Crown Prosecution Service (under Victims’ Code†) 3 0 0 0 – – – Debt Management Unit 22 0 0 0 – – – Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 51 0 6 0 – – – Department for Communities and Local Government 31 1 0 0 – – – Department for Culture, Media and Sport 4 0 0 0 – – – Department for Education 15 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 17 0 0 0 – – – Department for International Development 1 0 0 0 – – – Department for Transport 17 0 0 0 – – – Department for Work and Pensions 76 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% Department of Energy and Climate Change 67 0 0 0 – – –

47 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Department of Health 65 0 0 0 – – – Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 221 1 0 2 0% 100% 0% Driving Standards Agency 34 1 0 0 – – – Eaga Plc* 3 0 0 0 – – – Electoral Commission 11 0 0 0 – – – English Sports Council 1 0 0 0 – – – Environment Agency 58 0 0 0 – – – Food Standards Agency 8 0 0 0 – – – Foreign and Commonwealth Office 49 0 0 0 – – – Forestry Commission 12 0 0 0 – – – Gambling Commission 2 0 0 0 – – – Gangmasters Licensing Authority 2 0 0 0 – – – Gas and Electricity Markets Authority 4 0 0 0 – – – General Social Care Council 17 0 4 2 100% 0% 0% Government Office for London 1 0 0 0 – – – Health and Safety Executive 24 0 0 0 – – – Health Protection Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Highways Agency 34 0 0 1 0% 0% 100% Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England 4 0 0 0 – – – HM Courts Service 305 16 9 6 17% 67% 17% HM Prison Service 59 0 1 0 – – – HM Revenue & Customs 1,219 22 6 10 30% 30% 40% HM Treasury 14 0 0 0 – – – Home Office 22 0 0 0 – – – Homes and Communities Agency 6 0 0 0 – – – Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 1 0 0 0 – – – Identity and Passport Service 33 0 1 0 – – – Independent Case Examiner 208 0 8 14 43% 0% 57% Independent Complaints Adjudicator Service for Ofsted 4 0 0 0 – – – Independent Complaints Assessor 2 0 0 0 – – – Independent Complaints Reviewer 23 0 1 2 0% 0% 100% Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (Monitor) 4 0 0 0 – – – Independent Review Service for the Social Fund 25 0 0 0 – – – Information Commissioner 94 1 0 0 – – – Insolvency Service 20 0 0 0 – – – Jobcentre Plus 1,036 4 2 5 60% 40% 0% Land Registry 39 0 1 3 33% 67% 0%

*Eaga Plc is not a body in jurisdiction but its actions on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are. 48 Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Department of Health 65 0 0 0 – – – Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 221 1 0 2 0% 100% 0% Driving Standards Agency 34 1 0 0 – – – Eaga Plc* 3 0 0 0 – – – Electoral Commission 11 0 0 0 – – – English Sports Council 1 0 0 0 – – – Environment Agency 58 0 0 0 – – – Food Standards Agency 8 0 0 0 – – – Foreign and Commonwealth Office 49 0 0 0 – – – Forestry Commission 12 0 0 0 – – – Gambling Commission 2 0 0 0 – – – Gangmasters Licensing Authority 2 0 0 0 – – – Gas and Electricity Markets Authority 4 0 0 0 – – – General Social Care Council 17 0 4 2 100% 0% 0% Government Office for London 1 0 0 0 – – – Health and Safety Executive 24 0 0 0 – – – Health Protection Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Highways Agency 34 0 0 1 0% 0% 100% Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England 4 0 0 0 – – – HM Courts Service 305 16 9 6 17% 67% 17% HM Prison Service 59 0 1 0 – – – HM Revenue & Customs 1,219 22 6 10 30% 30% 40% HM Treasury 14 0 0 0 – – – Home Office 22 0 0 0 – – – Homes and Communities Agency 6 0 0 0 – – – Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 1 0 0 0 – – – Identity and Passport Service 33 0 1 0 – – – Independent Case Examiner 208 0 8 14 43% 0% 57% Independent Complaints Adjudicator Service for Ofsted 4 0 0 0 – – – Independent Complaints Assessor 2 0 0 0 – – – Independent Complaints Reviewer 23 0 1 2 0% 0% 100% Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (Monitor) 4 0 0 0 – – – Independent Review Service for the Social Fund 25 0 0 0 – – – Information Commissioner 94 1 0 0 – – – Insolvency Service 20 0 0 0 – – – Jobcentre Plus 1,036 4 2 5 60% 40% 0% Land Registry 39 0 1 3 33% 67% 0%

49 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Legal Services Commission 87 0 12 2 100% 0% 0% Local Government Boundary Commission for England 4 0 0 0 – – – Marine Management Organisation 1 0 0 0 – – – Maritime and Coastguard Agency 4 0 0 0 – – – Medical Services ATOS Healthcare** 17 0 0 0 – – – Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency 7 0 0 0 – – – Ministry of Defence 22 0 0 0 – – – Ministry of Justice 19 0 1 0 – – – Museums, Libraries and Archives Council 1 0 0 0 – – – National Archives 1 0 0 0 – – – National Insurance Contributions Office 11 0 0 0 – – – National Lottery Commission 10 0 0 0 – – – National Offender Management Service 17 1 1 1 0% 0% 100% National Probation Service (under Victims’ Code†) 1 0 0 0 – – – Natural England 15 1 0 0 – – – Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 1 0 0 0 – – – Northern Ireland Office 3 0 0 0 – – – Office for National Statistics 1 0 0 0 – – – Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services 17 0 1 0 – – – and Skills (Ofsted) Office for Tenants and Social Landlords 6 0 0 0 – – – Office of Communications 12 1 0 0 – – – Office of Fair Trading 14 0 0 0 – – – Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) 5 0 0 0 – – – Office of Rail Regulation 3 0 0 0 – – – Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner 3 0 0 0 – – – Office of the Traffic Commissioner 3 0 0 0 – – – Official Receiver 4 0 0 0 – – – Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court 3 0 0 1 0% 0% 100% Oil and Pipelines Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Ordnance Survey 3 0 0 0 – – – Parole Board 3 0 0 0 – – – Pension Protection Fund 2 0 0 0 – – – Pensions Ombudsman 13 0 0 0 – – – Planning Inspectorate 78 0 1 0 – – – Police (under Victims’ Code†) 5 0 0 0 – – – Postal Services Commission 1 0 0 0 – – –

†This public body is in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction only for complaints under the Victims’ Code. 50 Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Legal Services Commission 87 0 12 2 100% 0% 0% Local Government Boundary Commission for England 4 0 0 0 – – – Marine Management Organisation 1 0 0 0 – – – Maritime and Coastguard Agency 4 0 0 0 – – – Medical Services ATOS Healthcare** 17 0 0 0 – – – Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency 7 0 0 0 – – – Ministry of Defence 22 0 0 0 – – – Ministry of Justice 19 0 1 0 – – – Museums, Libraries and Archives Council 1 0 0 0 – – – National Archives 1 0 0 0 – – – National Insurance Contributions Office 11 0 0 0 – – – National Lottery Commission 10 0 0 0 – – – National Offender Management Service 17 1 1 1 0% 0% 100% National Probation Service (under Victims’ Code†) 1 0 0 0 – – – Natural England 15 1 0 0 – – – Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 1 0 0 0 – – – Northern Ireland Office 3 0 0 0 – – – Office for National Statistics 1 0 0 0 – – – Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services 17 0 1 0 – – – and Skills (Ofsted) Office for Tenants and Social Landlords 6 0 0 0 – – – Office of Communications 12 1 0 0 – – – Office of Fair Trading 14 0 0 0 – – – Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) 5 0 0 0 – – – Office of Rail Regulation 3 0 0 0 – – – Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner 3 0 0 0 – – – Office of the Traffic Commissioner 3 0 0 0 – – – Official Receiver 4 0 0 0 – – – Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court 3 0 0 1 0% 0% 100% Oil and Pipelines Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Ordnance Survey 3 0 0 0 – – – Parole Board 3 0 0 0 – – – Pension Protection Fund 2 0 0 0 – – – Pensions Ombudsman 13 0 0 0 – – – Planning Inspectorate 78 0 1 0 – – – Police (under Victims’ Code†) 5 0 0 0 – – – Postal Services Commission 1 0 0 0 – – –

**Medical Services ATOS Healthcare is not a body in jurisdiction but its actions on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions are. 51 The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling 2010-11

Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 43 0 1 1 100% 0% 0% Probation Trusts 6 0 0 0 – – – Rail Passengers’ Council 2 0 0 0 – – – Regional Development Agencies 6 0 0 0 – – – Residential Property Tribunal Service 4 0 0 0 – – – Rural Payments Agency 42 2 13 1 100% 0% 0% Security Industry Authority 37 0 0 0 – – – Serious Organised Crime Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Service Personnel and Veterans Agency 16 0 0 0 – – – Skills Funding Agency 6 0 3 1 0% 100% 0% The Adjudicator’s Office 352 1 5 6 17% 33% 50% The Office of the Public Guardian 53 0 7 5 80% 20% 0% The Pension, Disability and Carers Service 411 0 0 2 50% 0% 50% The Pensions Regulator 3 0 0 0 – – – Treasury Solicitor 8 0 0 0 – – – Tribunals Service 145 1 0 0 – – – UK Border Agency 638 37 19 26 62% 31% 8% UK Intellectual Property Office 4 0 0 0 – – – Valuation Office Agency 30 0 1 1 0% 100% 0% Valuation Tribunal Service 4 0 0 0 – – – Vehicle and Operator Services Agency 16 0 0 0 – – – Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) 10 0 0 0 – – – Witness Care Units (under Victims’ Code†) 2 0 0 0 – – – Young People’s Learning Agency for England 8 0 0 0 – – – Youth Justice Board 1 0 0 0 – – – Unknown 39 0 0 0 – – – Grand total 7,360 106 125 120 53% 25% 22%

†This public body is in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction only for complaints under the Victims’ Code. 52 Complaints Complaints Investigated Investigated Investigated Investigated Complaints resolved through accepted for complaints complaints complaints complaints received intervention investigation reported on reported on: reported on: reported on: 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 fully upheld % partly upheld % not upheld % Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 43 0 1 1 100% 0% 0% Probation Trusts 6 0 0 0 – – – Rail Passengers’ Council 2 0 0 0 – – – Regional Development Agencies 6 0 0 0 – – – Residential Property Tribunal Service 4 0 0 0 – – – Rural Payments Agency 42 2 13 1 100% 0% 0% Security Industry Authority 37 0 0 0 – – – Serious Organised Crime Agency 1 0 0 0 – – – Service Personnel and Veterans Agency 16 0 0 0 – – – Skills Funding Agency 6 0 3 1 0% 100% 0% The Adjudicator’s Office 352 1 5 6 17% 33% 50% The Office of the Public Guardian 53 0 7 5 80% 20% 0% The Pension, Disability and Carers Service 411 0 0 2 50% 0% 50% The Pensions Regulator 3 0 0 0 – – – Treasury Solicitor 8 0 0 0 – – – Tribunals Service 145 1 0 0 – – – UK Border Agency 638 37 19 26 62% 31% 8% UK Intellectual Property Office 4 0 0 0 – – – Valuation Office Agency 30 0 1 1 0% 100% 0% Valuation Tribunal Service 4 0 0 0 – – – Vehicle and Operator Services Agency 16 0 0 0 – – – Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) 10 0 0 0 – – – Witness Care Units (under Victims’ Code†) 2 0 0 0 – – – Young People’s Learning Agency for England 8 0 0 0 – – – Youth Justice Board 1 0 0 0 – – – Unknown 39 0 0 0 – – – Grand total 7,360 106 125 120 53% 25% 22%

53

Parliamentary and If you would like this report in Health Service Ombudsman a different format, such as Daisy or large print, please contact us. Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0345 015 4033 Textphone: 0300 061 4298 Fax: 0300 061 4000 Email: [email protected]

www.ombudsman.org.uk

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, telephone, fax and email TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/general enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701

The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders/general enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk

TSO@Blackwell and other accredited agents Insert Barcode