Agenda item

The Chair invited the Lead Member for Finance, Customer Services and Net Zero Council, Cllr Thalassites, supported by the Director of Customer Delivery, Sophie Evans, and Kojo Sarpong, Director of Housing Needs, to introduce the report to the Committee.

The Committee:

4.1Queried whether staffing numbers and training were the issue or whether it was down to an extra workload from more people requiring services. Officers indicated that while changing culture, prioritising complaints and training had an impact, staffing numbers were not an excuse for the performance in Housing Needs. Some staff did not contact residents following complaints and there was an issue with the department being proactive. Officers informed that a service redesign was underway to streamline training and recognised casework needed to be managed correctly.

4.2Sought an update on the system migration to iCasework in September 2023. Officers indicated there were some teething problems with data, but stronger reports from system would provide a more detailed analysis.

4.3Discussed where the unreasonable and vexatious complainants’ policy could be located as this raised a broader question about how residents and Councillors could find policies. Officers noted there was a web page on the website for complaints and the policies and offered to share this with the Committee.

Action by: Director of Customer Delivery

4.4Noted there was no data for Housing Management on the escalations due to different systems. Officers assured this could be provided to the Committee.

Action by: Director of Customer Delivery

4.5Considered whether root-cause analysis was taking place to ensure that serious complaints upheld, and complaints upheld by the Ombudsman did not occur again and whether there was a process in place to flag when a complaint was upheld a second time. Officers informed that a plan of action had to be agreed with Ombudsman whenever a complaint was upheld, followed by training, an apology letter followed by some follow-up by the Manager. With regard to analysis, because there were few Ombudsman cases, it did mean that trends were easier to identify, although there are no obvious trends apparent as of yet.

4.6Discussed whether members of staff who had complaints against them were tracked from a Human Resources perspective. Officers confirmed this was the case.

4.7Highlighted that 49% of complaints regarding Adult Social Care were responded to within ten days and queried what was being done to increase this rate as it seemed low, especially as sensitive cases could be distressing. Officers indicated there was a separate statutory process for complaints to Adult and Children’s Social Care but asserted that wherever possible, those departments should be looking to respond within the Council’s own timelines.

4.8Referred to challenges in Housing Needs with staffing changes and the long-term vacancy of the Team Leader role and considered if there was an update on this. Officers indicated there was a senior customer experience officer who ran support for delegating complaints, but that individual left the post a year ago and temporary staff did not last long. However, a member of staff from Customer Delivery had been assisting with providing a corporate complaints eye in Housing Needs and Officers had seen a notable increase in quality of the data received.

4.9Enquired how a case managed to get to the Ombudsmen before the Licensing and Street Line enforcement team were asked to resolve it first. Officers noted that the Ombudsman found that the services in question had not accepted the residents’ complaints, had been dismissive and the resident suffered significant distress. As a result, the resident had lost all trust in the Council to consider complaints fairly and openly. Officers elaborated that an agreement was reached whereby if the complainant looked to lodge another complaint in future, they could be reassured that the same Officers would not deal with the case.

4.10   Questioned whether a fine was issued to the business in question in Case 3 and 4 as the Council had paid out compensation. Officers confirmed this would not be charged to the business as it was not a business issue, the compensation was payable by the Council as the case had caused the complainant significant distress. In response to a question about what was lacking from the enforcement team’s approach that led to the complaint, Officers highlighted that they did respond fully and transparently about whether the council’s policies were being adhered to.

4.11   Considered whether Officers had looked at the work culture of those responding to complaints, especially pre-Covid 19 and post-Covid 19 and deliberated whether home working has had an impact. Officers suggested there may be an element of home working that had impacted on the way the service was managed, but managers had enough communication with staff, both in the office and at home, for complaints to be responded to in a reasonable timeframe.

4.12   Explored how much quality assurance was made by the nomination process with Registered Providers that accommodation was suitable and appropriate. Officers noted that they had a certain percentage of nominations that came to Housing Needs each year and there was an agreed standard before a property was offered to a resident. When property was offered, the resident had a right to view and they could raise concerns, it would be between the Council and the resident if the resident did not feel it was appropriate. Officers informed they also had a right to request a review and there was a statutory framework as to what is appropriate; residents would often be advised to accept a property and request a review in case review failed.

4.13   Drew attention to a specific case where the resident was encouraged to accept the property, but resident felt that if they accepted, they would have no ability to request a review. Officers indicated they would follow-up on this case.

Action by: Director of Housing Needs

4.14   Acknowledged there was an aspiration to learn from complaints and deal with them in a timely manner. However, it was felt that if the Council was to meet the aspiration of being the ‘best council’, performance would need to significantly improve, and it seemed that Officers were not getting the buy-in from around the Council that was needed. The Committee recommended that these figures needed to be seen on a monthly basis by senior managers and the Leadership Team.

4.15   Surveyed what mechanism was in place to assure that complaints about council policy can be used in formulating council policy in the long-term. Officers indicated it was standard for a corporate complaints policy not to have complaints about policy as such complaints were raised in democratic processes. Such complaints were dealt with outside the complaints process, but this was something that could be reviewed.

The Committee RECOMMENDED:

4.16 that the Leadership Team monitor complaints performance information on a monthly basis to support the aspiration ‘to be the best Council’.

The Chair summarised the discussion and REFERRED the report to the Adult Social Care & Health Select Committee.

Action by: Governance Officer