TO: THE EXECUTIVE 6 SEPTEMBER 2011

COMPLAINTS AGAINST BRACKNELL FOREST COUNCIL IN 2010/11 Assistant Chief Executive

1 PURPOSE OF DECISION 1.1 To brief the Executive about complaints made against the Council in 2010/11, as part of the

ongoing work to be responsive to residents’ concerns, in pursuit of Medium Term Objective 10 (‘To be accountable and provide excellent value for money’).

2 RECOMMENDATIONS That the Executive: 2.1 Endorses the approach taken to dealing with and learning from complaints to the

Council; 2.2 Notes the Annual Review letter of the Local Government Ombudsman to the Council

for 2010/11; and 2.3 Notes the information on other complaints against the Council in 2010/11. 3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Council’s staff guidelines on complaints stipulate that, ‘The Chief Executive’s Office

shall write an annual report about complaints, which shall include reference to the annual letter issued by the Local Government Ombudsman’. This report gives the Executive information on an important aspect of the Council’s services to residents, in keeping with the Council’s Charter for Customers, which includes always putting the customer first, learning from feedback, and continually aiming to improve the Council’s service and performance.

3.2 To support the implementation of the corporate Customer Contact Strategy, endorsed by

the Council’s Executive on 5 July 2011. This strategy’s overarching aim is to improve the quality of customer service to residents and service users.

4 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED 4.1 None. 5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Annual Review Letter From the Local Government Ombudsman 5.1 The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has statutory powers under the Local

Government Act 1974 to investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities. The LGO investigates complaints about most council matters including housing, planning, education, social services, consumer protection, drainage and council tax.

5.2 The LGO requires complainants to give the council concerned an opportunity to deal with a

complaint against it first, using the council's own complaints procedure, and if this has not been done, the LGO deems such complaints to be ‘premature’. If the complainant is not satisfied with the action the council takes, he or she can send a written complaint to the LGO, or ask a councillor to do so on their behalf. The LGO’s Annual Letter is therefore an important, independent ‘barometer’ of the effectiveness of the Council’s complaints resolution process and service to residents generally.

5.3 The objective of the LGO is to secure, where appropriate, satisfactory redress for

complainants and better administration for the authorities. Since 1989, the LGO has had power to issue advice on good administrative practice in local government based on experience derived from his investigations. To this end, the LGO has published guidance on good practice on setting up complaints systems, good administrative practice, council housing repairs, members' interests, disposal of land and remedies, also statistics on complaints for all councils, and digests of cases.

5.4 Within the Council, the Chief Executive’s Office co-ordinates the responses to any

complaints referred from the LGO to the Council (except statutory social services cases which are dealt with by the Adult Social Care & Health or Children, Young People & Learning department as appropriate), and acts as the main liaison point with the LGO; as part of this, the Head of Overview and Scrutiny attended an LGO Link Officer seminar in London on 14 December 2010. The LGO has previously commented that the liaison arrangements are working well, and the Ombudsman who retired in November 2010 wrote to the Chief Executive, saying ‘thank you for the effective working relationship that has been established between our two offices during my time as Local Government Ombudsman.’

5.5 The LGO’s Annual Review Letter to the Council for 2010/11 is attached at Appendix 1,

which includes an analysis of complaints received by the LGO. The key points are:

a) The LGO received 20 complaints about the Council in 2010/11, 2 more than the 18 in 2009/10. It is notable that only 6 of these were forwarded to the LGO’s investigative team to pursue. The slight increase seems broadly consistent with the national picture; in its annual report for 2010-11, the LGO said, “Complaint numbers have increased over the year and we expect this upward trend to continue. Our Advice Team, the initial point of contact, dealt with a 21 per cent increase in complaints and enquiries, resulting in 7.5 per cent more complaints being forwarded to investigative teams.”

b) The incidence of complaints received by the LGO is fairly evenly distributed between the Council’s service areas, with higher case numbers in education, planning and development.

c) There have been no findings by the LGO against the Council for maladministration in 2010-11. Although it is not mentioned in this letter, the last finding of maladministration against Bracknell Forest Council by the LGO was in the year 2000.

d) There have been no local settlements (monetary compensation) LGO cases in 2010/11 (there were none in 2009/10 and seven cases in 2008/09).

e) In two cases, the LGO concluded that there had been no maladministration by the Council, and six cases were not pursued mainly due to insufficient evidence (‘Ombudsman discretion’ and ‘outside jurisdiction’ in the table).

f) The total number of complaints (8), excluding premature complaints, ‘determined’ by the LGO concerning Bracknell Forest in 2010/11 is slightly higher than the 6 cases determined in 2009/10.

g) The Council’s average speed in responding to LGO cases has remained well within the 28 days permitted by the LGO (at 24 days for adult social care, and 18.3 days for the other cases. 59% of all Unitary Authorities responded in less than 28 days on average during 2010/11.

5.6 The Council’s performance on LGO cases compared to the average for all Unitary Authorities in Berkshire, all Unitary Authorities nationally, and all local authorities nationally is shown in Appendix 2. Bracknell Forest’s statistics for 2010/11 are better than these comparator groups in all cases.

5.7 In summary, the volume of complaints to the LGO concerning Bracknell Forest Council can

be regarded as very low in view of the huge number of customer interactions by the Council each year. The extent to which complaints are upheld is lower still, comparing favourably against other councils. This continues the positive trend in recent years. Other Complaints Against the Council

5.8 The Council’s overall complaint statistics are given in Appendix 3. These exclude

complaints dealt with verbally at the point of service, such as verbal reports to front line staff, where issues are resolved locally. No central records are kept of such stage 1 complaints. The figures in Appendix 3 include complaints relating to social services. Members should note that there are also separate statutory annual reports produced by the Adult Social Care & Health, also the Children, Young People and Learning Departments. The main themes from the complaints statistics in Appendix 3 are:

a) There has been an increase of 11 (14%) in the overall number of reported complaints in

2010/11 compared to 2009/10.

b) The statistics continue to show that the majority of complaints are resolved without recourse to later stages in the process.

Learning From Complaints in 2010/11

5.9 The Council’s overall approach has continued, to train and empower front line staff to deal

effectively with complaints at the earliest opportunity. The Council’s publication, ‘Comments, Compliments or Complaints about council services’ was revised and reissued in 2011, as were the Council’s internal guidelines for staff on handling complaints. Quarterly Departmental Performance Monitoring Reports (PMR) publish information on complaints and how the Council has learnt from them. Examples of this learning process in 2010/11 have included:

Adult Social Care and Health

(i) A complaint relating to the Care Manager supporting a client was upheld and the

Care Manager was changed.

(ii) A complaint concerned poor communication regarding discharge from hospital to home. The complaint was upheld, and channels of communication between authorities were improved.

(iii) Another complaint concerned a lunch time telephone call missed by the care

provider. This was due to human error, and new contingency plans were put in place.

(iv) On considering the lessons from a complaint regarding the financial contribution by

an adult social care service user, the department introduced a standard spreadsheet for use in calculating the financial disregards for spouses, to supplement the automated calculation by the IT system. It was also decided to introduce a 5% check of all cases by the Financial Assessments Team Leader, to augment the checking of all assessment inputs already in place.

(v) Arising from an increased number of complaints, it was decided to produce an information booklet explaining all aspects of the financial process.

Children, Young People and Learning

(vi) A complaint about a lack of communication regarding arrangements for

grandchildren was partially upheld and this assisted learning about internal communication between teams and with the parent.

(vii) A complaint concerning inappropriate disclosure of third party information was

upheld and the department’s procedures were changed.

(viii) In the light of a complaint concerning a school admission case, a number of changes were made to the Council’s systems:

• In all cases where a parent/guardian declines the offer of a school place or is unsuccessful in any school admission appeal, the system has been tightened to ensure that no child’s education needs are overlooked.

• Arrangements for involving the education welfare team have been strengthened.

Corporate Services

(ix) A customer using the online complaints form considered that the monitoring

information had not been handled appropriately. The Council’s automated e-mail response has been re-worded, the procedure for handling the monitoring information has been changed and the online complaints form was amended to state that the monitoring information is optional.

(x) Arising from a case where school transport was wrongly rejected, the school

transport application form and procedures were changed to ascertain reasons for a school appearing on the form which is outside a child’s ‘designated area’.

Environment, Culture and Communities

(xi) In the light of a complaint from a neighbouring occupier, relating to the Council’s role

in supporting construction of an extension to a property, the Council decided that the working arrangements on Disabled Facility Grant cases needed reviewing, to see how they could be improved in the future.

6 ADVICE RECEIVED FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICERS Borough Solicitor 6.1 Nothing to add to this report. Borough Treasurer 6.2 There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Equalities Impact Assessment 6.3 There are no direct impact issues to be considered. Strategic Risk Management Issues 6.4 This report presents no strategic risk management issues for the Council.

Other Officers 6.5 The views of other relevant officers in departments have been sought in the production of

this information report. 7 CONSULTATION Principal Groups Consulted 7.1 Corporate Management Team Method of Consultation 7.2 Consultation was carried out on the draft information report. Representations Received 7.3 None. Background Papers Quarterly Corporate and Departmental performance reports 2010/11 Contact for further information Victor Nicholls, Assistant Chief Executive Victor.nicholls@bracknell-forest.gov.uk Tel: 01344 355604 Richard Beaumont, Head of Overview & Scrutiny Richard.beaumont@bracknell-forest.gov.uk Tel: 01344 352283 Doc. Ref H:\ALLUSE\Performance and Improvement\Complaints and Correspondence

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Ombudsman Complaints – National comparison Bracknell

Forest Berks Unitaries - Average

National Unitary Authorities – Average*

National Local Authorities - Average

Maladministration and Injustice Reports

2010-11 2009-10

0 0

0 0

0.1

0.3 0.1

0.2 Local Settlements 2010-11

2009-10

0 0

4.7 4

7.7

6.6 5.6

5.4 Maladministration Reports 2010-11

2009-10

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Ombudsman’s Discretion 2010-11 2009-10

4 1

4.7

4.5 7.8

6.3 5.6

5.4 Outside Jurisdiction 2010-11

2009-10

2 0

3.2

3.7 5.7

4.6 3.9

3.7 Source – Local Government Ombudsman Website *Excluding London Borough Councils

Appendix 3

COMPLAINTS – 2010/11

Department Statutory Stage 1

Statutory Stage 2

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Ombudsman Total Complaints

Chief Executive’s Office

N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0

Corporate Services

N/A N/A 11 2 1 0 14 Environment, Culture and Communities

N/A N/A 6 7 2 4 19

Children, Young People & Learning

2 0 12 1 0 0 15

Adult Social Care & Health

37 0 0 0 0 2 39

Total

39 0 29 10 3 6 87

COMPLAINTS – 2009/10

Department Statutory

Stage 1 Statutory Stage 2

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Ombudsman Total Complaints

Chief Executive’s Office

N/A N/A 0 1 0 0 1

Corporate Services

N/A N/A 14 1 0 0 15 Environment, Culture and Communities

N/A N/A 10 0 1 4 15

Children, Young People & Learning

10 4 13 0 0 2 29

Adult Social Care & Health

15 0 0 0 0 1 16

Total

25

4

37

2

1

7

76

Source – Corporate Performance Overview Reports, with later corrections from some departments Notes 1. From 1 April 2008, the classification of complaints changed from three to four stages, with the new stages 2, 3 and 4 equating to the former stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The new stage 1 complaints are not recorded centrally, as they tend not to be in writing.

2. The figure of 6 Ombudsman cases differs to the 20 in the LGO’s annual review letter due to their including preliminary enquiries which they decide not to pursue or refer on to the Council.