Agenda item

5.1  Members gave consideration to the Annual Report of the Council’s Complaints and Members Enquiries service and the Chair welcomed Bruce Devile (BD) (Head of Business Intelligence & Member Services) to the meeting.

5.2  BD took members through the report in detail and it was noted that the number of complaints overall was down 9% on last year.  Member Enquiries volumes were up however and so the case load had gone up.  Complaints on repairs were down 14% and on Adult Social Care by 30% but he noted that in this area they do fluctuate considerably year on year.  In terms of the increased volumes housing remained the biggest driver of complaints but this needed to be looked at in the context of Hackney having a very large housing stock and a large number in severe housing need.

5.3  Members asked detailed questions and in the responses the following points were noted:

(a)  Members asked whether there was a service issue which needed to be addressed with the Noise Service in how it balances responding to one-off noise incidents (e.g. a rave/party) vs. ongoing noise disturbance (anti social behaviour).  Members also expressed concern that residents were forced to engage with the service online only e.g. at 2.00 am on a weekend when the disturbance was ongoing.  BD replied that complaints listed here referred to a failure in the service not specific noise incidents.  The bulk of complaints about the service related to ongoing noise rather than parties/nightlife and the phone service was open late on weekends. Many of the complaints involved two neighbours complaining against each other.

(b)  Members asked what proportion of complaints related to Traffic Schemes.  BD replied that he did not have this at hand but would provide it.

(c)  Members asked about outcomes of complaints getting changed over the course of a process and asked for a further breakdown, over the last year, on the number of complaints proceeding to Stage 2 which were then upheld.  BD undertook to provide this.  He added that every complaint that goes to Stage 2 is investigated afresh and Directors are made aware of the content and the learning to be gained from it.

(d)  Members commented that the increase in average response times to Member Enquiries from 13 to 18 days since 2014 was an issue as residents very get frustrated by this. BD acknowledged that it was too long and Cllr Kennedy was engaged in some work on how to improve the process.  BD added that he had impressed on officers the need for better quality responses and for Members to challenge whether the Members Enquiries process was the right process for the issue being raised.  Members asked how it could be streamlined.  BD responded that an enquiry might raise 10 issues and some could be resolved more easily through existing systems many of which are online e.g. reporting a broken tap.  The issue was whether the services was making the best use of scarce resources as the Members Enquiries system was resource and labour intensive. 

(e)  Members commented that it was often simple things (such as broken taps) which illustrate how a service is performing poorly as residents come to them when they have exhausted all other options.  A Member stated that they do enable and empower residents and act as, effectively, a triage system for the Council.  BD acknowledged this but added that there were still a proportion of complaints that shouldn’t be in the Members Enquiries system and could feasibly come out of it.  A Member commented that there were generic questions they regularly use to help reduce the overall volume of repeat complaints but there needed to be a better system. 

(f)  Members expressed a concern regarding the fact that 70% of complaints to the Ombudsman had been upheld and asked whether there was a “lessons learned” document from the outcome of Ombudsmans complaints arguing that the fact that Ombudsman takes on issues is a sign of poor performance.  BD clarified that when the Ombudsman agrees with the Council’s outcome it is still categorised as ‘upheld’ .  Upheld means that the Ombudsman has agreed something has gone wrong.  Members asked why residents then persist with Ombudsmans complaints.  BD stated that the complainants will often feel they want more satisfaction.  The Ombudsman had provided detail on 19 of the 21 recent upheld cases.  Half of these involved haggling over the amount of the financial remedy and some are upheld involving a minimal amount.  Members asked for further detail on additional payments and he undertook to provide this.  He reassured Members that the number of cases per year which could be considered outliers here was very few.  Just 2 cases had gone to public report in the past year and there was very differing legal opinions around those two.  He stated that Ombudsmans Report go to Group Directors and Directors and they make sure learning is cascaded down. Members asked if they could get more detail on why response times to ACS complaints remain so long.

(g)  Chair of Audit Cttee commented that learning and not just reacting was what was needed in relation to Complaints. The key point was what the Service was learning so the amount of feedback they receive is very important.  Prioritising quality of response over speediness was sensible. On the issue of response time for Members Enquiries the increased complexity of enquiries pointed to perhaps the need for more resource.  There was significant variation between response times and was this going back to managers.  He asked whether the Head of Complaints was able to sufficiently monitor whether the response to feedback was happening.

(h)  Cabinet Member for Finance and Housing Needs commented that it might be helpful to the Panel to ask for a briefing note from the Group Directors and Directors on the steps they were taking to respond to the feedback received from the complaints process. 

5.4  The Chair thanked the officer for his report and attendance.