View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Local Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review
March 2016
Executive Summary
1. This review of service complaints covers the period from September 2015 to
February 2016. I have examined 10 service complaints; two relating to intake
teams, three relating to assessment teams and five relating to investigation
teams.
2. The need to identify whether adjustments were required to assist service users
was a common feature in several cases. I am pleased to report that I found that
managers had addressed this correctly in each case.
3. I also found that the service complaints were addressed appropriately by
managers. I have therefore made a small number of recommendations to
enhance service delivery.
4. Recordings of telephone calls would have been invaluable in reviewing some of
the cases relating to assessment and investigation teams. I have previously
recommended this and I am aware that it is being considered.
5. A recording of a telephone call relating to a service complaint about an intake
team had been destroyed shortly before my review. I have therefore
recommended that the Ombudsman’s retention policy is also reviewed so that
some recordings can be retained for a longer period.
6. I have previously recommended that guidance is issued to ensure that
dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman’s service is brought to the attention of
managers without delay. This is also relevant to a case I considered in this
review.
7. In my last review, one service complaint related to a case where no progress had
been made but this had not been identified by the supervisory systems already in
place. I have examined a similar case during this review and therefore
recommended that these systems are reviewed.
8. Finally, I have identified a conflict in the information provided to complainants and
guidance to staff on how service complaints may be received. I have therefore
recommended that this is reviewed.
9. I have set out my recommendations below.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 2
Reference Recommendations
Complaint Three
I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to discover if a lack of progress in investigations could be identified at an early stage and whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.
Complaint Four
In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already under consideration.
Complaint Five
In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already under consideration.
Complaint Seven
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the retention policy for telephone calls and consider introducing a process to identify suitable cases, such as those relating to complaints about the Ombudsman’s service, for retention beyond six months.
Complaint Ten
The Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff in respect of requests from callers to speak to a supervisor, including those instances where dissatisfaction with the service provided is apparent.
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the guidance given to staff on termination of telephone calls to ensure that a manager is alerted to a potential complaint about the Ombudsman’s service.
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing information contained in the Intake Team Manual and that provided to complainants to ensure consistency.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 3
Complaint One
Summary
10. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator between
April and December 2015. He alleged that the investigator was biased, she had
delayed her investigation and she had not responded to letters. He also said that
the Ombudsman had discriminated against him as he is dyslexic and he was
expected to submit a complaint in writing.
11. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint; taking
into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices.
12. I therefore make no recommendations.
Making a complaint
13. This service complaint was raised in a telephone call to the Ombudsman.
Although the complainant is dyslexic there is no indication that the complainant
required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
14. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased and had delayed her
investigation unnecessarily. He also alleged that the Ombudsman had
discriminated against him. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this
appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the
complainant.
Reasonableness
15. This service complaint relates to a complicated case, only some aspects of which
fell within the remit of the Ombudsman. It was first raised, prematurely, with the
Ombudsman in January 2014. It was assigned to an investigator in November
2014 and transferred to another investigator in April 2015.
16. A draft decision was sent to the complainant in July 2015. In August 2015 the
complainant asked the investigator to attend a meeting with 200 women to
explain failings in the council’s systems. The investigator refused, explaining that
her role was to consider the injustice the complainant and his family had suffered
and an appropriate remedy.
17. In August the Assistant Ombudsman telephoned the complainant at his request.
He alleged that the investigator was biased because of her previous experience.
The Assistant Ombudsman assured him that the investigator was thorough and
understanding but the complainant felt that she was not trustworthy and asked
that his case be reassigned to a different investigator. This was considered by an
Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. She said she could see no
reason why the case should be reassigned, particularly at that stage of the
investigation.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 4
18. In December 2015 the complainant responded to the draft decision. He also
telephoned the Ombudsman and again alleged that the investigator was biased;
she had delayed her investigation and was rude as she had not responded to
letters sent by other family members. He also said that the Ombudsman had
discriminated against him as he is dyslexic and he was expected to submit a
complaint in writing.
19. The complainant sent a lengthy letter to the Assistant Ombudsman repeating his
allegations. He also made further telephone calls in which he demanded that his
service complaint was dealt with immediately and that he was able to meet with a
senior manager. He was clearly angry and one of the telephone calls was
terminated for this reason.
20. This service complaint was passed to another Assistant Ombudsman who
reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant. He said that a meeting was
neither necessary nor appropriate and that there was no evidence of bias in the
investigator’s actions; she had concluded that the council was at fault in some
aspects of the complaint. He explained that the Ombudsman would normally
address any correspondence to the person making the complaint. He apologised
that the case had taken so long to address. It was reassigned as the original
investigator took on a new role but he considered it could have been addressed
sooner. He noted that the complainant was dyslexic and that he may find reading
difficult; letters sent to the complainant by the Ombudsman were written in a
larger font at his request, he had assistance from family members who were
clearly involved with his knowledge and consent and he had provided an
extensive written reply to the draft decision.
21. In January 2016 the Assistant Ombudsman telephoned the complainant. The
notes show that much of the conversation referred to the complainant’s
allegations, including the alleged discrimination. The complainant was loud and
excitable, interrupting the Assistant Ombudsman and refusing to accept what he
said.
22. Having examined the copious notes of telephone contact with the complainant
and correspondence received from and sent to the complainant, I can find no
evidence of discrimination. Indeed, it is clear that adjustments were made from
the start of the investigation to take account of the complaint’s dyslexia and
communicate effectively with him. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman’s
review and response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all
of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
Staying informed
23. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of his
complaint. They are written in a larger font at his request. There is also copious
telephone contact with the complainant.
Outcomes
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 5
24. The initial service complaint was received on 9 December 2015 and the Assistant
Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 5
January 2016. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.
25. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account
the information supplied by the complainant.
26. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
27. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
I therefore make no recommendations.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 6
Complaint Two
Summary
28. This service complaint relates to letters sent to a complainant’s son during 2015.
He alleged that the Ombudsman addressed these incorrectly. The addresses are
that contained in the Royal Mail database which the Ombudsman checks for data
protection purposes.
29. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with the initial service complaint;
the complainant then complained about her and this was dealt with by the
Executive Director. Both reviews took into account the circumstances and the
Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no
recommendations.
Making a complaint
30. Both service complaints were raised in letters to the Ombudsman. There is no
indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to
make his complaints.
Scope
31. The complainant insisted that the Ombudsman incorrectly addressed letter to
him. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director addressed this
appropriately in their reviews of these service complaints and responses to the
complainant.
Reasonableness
32. These service complaints relates to a case where the complainant had died after
the Ombudsman’s investigation had finished. The Ombudsman was not aware
and, as is normal practice, sent a customer satisfaction survey in May 2015. The
complainant’s son informed the Ombudsman that she had died and asking the
Ombudsman to remove his mother’s details from their database. The investigator
wrote to the complainant’s son confirming this had been done and expressing
condolences. The complainant replied and said that the investigator had used the
wrong town in addressing his letter.
33. The investigator checked that the town used in the address was that contained in
the Royal Mail’s public database; the Ombudsman uses this database to ensure
that they comply with data protection requirements. He informed the complainant
of this in a letter.
34. The complainant replied, complaining that the investigator had ignored his
request and insisted that his preference was used in future correspondence.
35. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. She
wrote to the complainant, explaining the checks that the investigator had made to
confirm the complainant’s address. She said that that the town was listed in the
Royal Mail’s database for both the complainant’s and his mother’s postcodes. No
concerns had been raised in relation to correspondence sent to his mother’s
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 7
address and it was clear that the complainant had received correspondence sent
to him. She did not substantiate the complaint.
36. The complainant sent a lengthy reply, reiterating his complaint and explaining in
detail his objection to the Ombudsman’s use of the address contained in the
Royal Mail’s database. He then submitted a service complaint about the
Assistant Ombudsman which was passed to the Executive Director.
37. The Executive Director wrote to the complainant, explaining that he had no
reason to criticise the Assistant Ombudsman. He noted the complainant’s view
on the town used in his address and that, from its public database, the Royal Mail
took a different view. He said that the Assistant Ombudsman had addressed the
complainant’s substantive points and that the Ombudsman would not correspond
further about this.
38. The complainant sent a further detailed letter to the Executive Director. In light of
the Executive Director’s wishes, no further action was taken.
39. Letters from the complainant are pedantic and repetitive. There is no evidence to
suggest that the Royal Mail database is incorrect or that the complainant and his
mother did not receive any correspondence from the Ombudsman.
40. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's and Executive Director’s reviews and
responses to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the
circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I agree with
the Executive Director’s decision to consider the matter closed.
Staying informed
41. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of his
complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were
required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
42. The initial service complaint was received on 12 October 2015 and the Assistant
Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant the next
day. The subsequent service complaint was received on 23 October and the
Executive Director reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on
30 October 2015. Both service complaints were dealt with within the published
timescale of 20 working days.
43. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director directly addressed the
complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant.
44. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 8
Conclusion and recommendations
45. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
I therefore make no recommendations.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 9
Complaint Three
Summary
46. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator in an
Assessment Team between February 2015 and January 2016. The complainant
questioned why there had been a long period without any contact from the
Ombudsman. A review of the case revealed that the investigator had failed to
use the casework records system correctly and appears to have subsequently
taken no further action.
47. The Head of Assessment dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking
into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices.
I have recommended that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to
identify if this or similar incidents could be identified at an earlier stage and
whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.
Making a complaint
48. This complaint was raised in an email to the Ombudsman and referred to an
Assessment Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the
complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
49. The complainant said that a long period had elapsed during which time she had
not been contacted by the investigator. The Assessment Team Leader
addressed this appropriately in his review and response to the complainant.
Reasonableness
50. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in February 2015 concerning an
issue with her daughter’s education. This was passed to an investigator for
assessment as to whether the Ombudsman should investigate her complaint.
The investigator wrote to the council in March 2015 and received a response the
next day. The investigator failed to use the casework records system correctly
and appears to have subsequently taken no further action in relation to this
complaint. As there was no further contact from either the complaint or the
council this only came to light in January 2016 when the investigator was absent
from work due to ill heath and her work was reassigned by the Head of
Assessment.
51. The new investigator contacted the complainant who requested an explanation
for the delay. This was treated as a service complaint and passed to the Head of
Assessment. He reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant, apologising for
the long delay and explaining the circumstances. He said that assessments are
usually completed within 20 working days and, whilst it may take longer in a small
number of cases, it should not have taken this long.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 10
52. The Assessment Manual sets out the process by which complaints are assessed
including the objective of making a quick and clear decision on every incoming
complaint. It contains instructions on how cases are allocated and validated
using the ECHO database. Once team members allocate cases to themselves
the system sets a 20 day target and uses a traffic light system to indicate the time
period (showing red when 20 working days have elapsed). This is cleared if a
case is closed or forwarded for investigation.
53. Workload management and organisation is dealt with in appendix 3 of the
manual. The Head of Assessment is responsible for the effective operation,
quality and performance of the assessment process. He is supported by
Assessment Team Leaders who deal with day to day performance. The
Assessment Team Leaders take an overview of the work by running a daily
report on unallocated cases from the ECHO database. Each team also has a
Team Coordinator who is responsible for ensuring efficient administrative and
business systems.
54. Guidance in respect of Assessment Team Leaders’ supervision of allocated
cases is contained in the Quality and Standards Manual (paragraph 6.4). They
must quality check at least five cases for each investigator each year. Other
monitoring of performance indicators should ensure that, if the ECHO database is
used correctly, cases such as the one which is subject of this service complaint
are rare.
55. I found the Head of Assessment's review and response to the complainant to be
reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s
standard working practices. There is nothing recorded in the ‘Lessons Learnt
section of the ECHO database. It seems appropriate, however, to recommend
that the Ombudsman reviews the systems already in place to identify if this
incident could have been identified at an earlier stage and whether improvements
could be made to prevent this reoccurring.
Staying informed
56. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific
nature of her complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments
were required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
57. The complaint was received on 18 January 2016 and the Head of Assessment
reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 5 February 2016.
This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.
58. The Head of Assessment directly addressed the complaint, taking into account
the information supplied by the complainant, including her views.
59. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 11
Conclusion and recommendation
60. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. In light of the long delay in this
case I have recommended that the Ombudsman reviews the systems already in
place to identify if this incident could have been identified at an earlier stage and
any improvements.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews supervisory systems to discover if a
lack of progress in investigations could be identified at an early stage and
whether improvements could be made to prevent reoccurrence.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 12
Complaint Four
Summary
61. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator in an
Assessment Team between March 2015 and January 2016. The complainant
alleged that the investigator was rude and unprofessional. The complaint was
reviewed by an Assessment Team Leader. Telephone conversations in
Assessment Teams are not recorded but the Assessment Team Leader had
previously had a difficult conversation with the complainant. He considered there
was no evidence to justify the complaint.
62. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
63. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and investigator in the
Assessment Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service
complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am
aware that this is being considered
Making a complaint
64. This complaint was raised in emails to the Ombudsman and referred to an
Assessment Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the
complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
65. The complainant said that the investigator had been rude and unprofessional.
The Assessment Team Leader addressed this appropriately in her review and
response to the complainant.
Reasonableness
66. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in March 2015 concerning a
complaint about his council. Notes show that he had contacted the Intake Team
a few days after this as he was unhappy that his complaint had not been
allocated. He accused the adviser in the Intake Team of talking over him.
67. The complaint was allocated to an investigator in an Assessment Team who
decided that the case was not one that the Ombudsman could investigate and
issued a draft decision. He also explained the review process to the complainant
who did not accept his decision but declined to make further comment. The
investigator issued a final decision.
68. In June 2015 the complainant again telephoned the investigator. He said he
refused to accept the decision and wanted the investigator explain his decision
again. The investigator declined as they had already discussed it and there was
nothing new to add. The complainant alleged that the investigator was covering
up facts. The investigator terminated the call and the complainant then left a
voicemail message; he said the investigator was rude and unprofessional.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 13
69. This service complaint was passed to an Assessment Team Leader who
reviewed the case and contacted the complainant. The complainant was
apparently aggressive and alleged that the Assessment Team Leader was
interrupting him. The Assessment Team Leader notes that it was the complainant
who was continually interrupted him and that the conversation was made more
difficult by the complainant’s partner speaking in the background. The
Assessment Team Leader concluded there was no basis for the complaint.
70. The complainant contacted the investigator again in January 2016, repeating the
demands he had made in his earlier telephone call. The investigator found him
aggressive and uncivil and notes that a third party was speaking constantly in the
background. The investigator terminated the call.
71. The complainant then sent a letter to the Ombudsman alleging that the
investigator was rude and unprofessional.
72. This was passed to the Assessment Team Leader who wrote to the complainant.
He included an extract from the investigator’s notes of the recent telephone
conversation with the complainant. He said that he did not know how the
complainant and the investigator spoken to each other but referred to the difficult
conversation they had in July 2015. He said that the complainant was unwilling to
accept that the Ombudsman could not help him and the recent telephone
conversation was unnecessary as it could achieve nothing. There was no
evidence that the service complaint was justified. He said that the Ombudsman
would note any further contact but would not acknowledge or reply unless it
clearly contained new information which had a bearing on the decision.
73. Guidance on unreasonable behaviour is included in the Assessment Manual. It is
recognised that unreasonable complainant conduct does not mean that there is
not a valid issue. Whilst there are no strict rules about formal action that the
Ombudsman might take, cases should be discussed with managers; this
happened in respect of this service complaint.
74. I found the Assessment Team Leader's review and response to the complainant
to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the
Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
75. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and the investigator in
the Assessment Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service
complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am
aware that this is being considered.
Staying informed
76. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and address the specific
nature of his complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments
were required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 14
77. The complaint was received on 14 January 2016 and the Assessment Team
Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant the next day.
This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.
78. The Assessment Team Leader Team Leader directly addressed the complaint,
taking into account the information supplied by the complainant, including his
views.
79. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
80. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
Recommendation
In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the
Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of
the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already
under consideration.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 15
Complaint Five
Summary
81. These service complaints relate to a case considered by an investigator in an
Investigation Team between April and November 2015. The complainant alleged
that the investigator had misled him, not kept in contact with him and that there
was a delay in issuing the draft decision.
82. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with the initial service complaint.
The complainant then complained about her and this was dealt with by the
Executive Director. Both reviews took into account the circumstances and the
Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
83. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and investigator in the
Investigation Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service
complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am
aware that this is being considered
Making a complaint
84. Both complaints were raised in telephone calls to the Ombudsman. The
complainant is visually impaired but there is no indication that he required any
additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
85. The complainant insisted that the Ombudsman incorrectly addressed letter to
him. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director addressed this
appropriately in their reviews of these service complaints and responses to the
complainant.
Reasonableness
86. These service complaints relate to a case considered by an investigator between
April and November 2015. The complainant is visually impaired and had given
his permission for the Ombudsman to write to him when he submitted a
complaint about his council.
87. There was a delay in issuing the draft decision. The investigator apologised to
the complainant who said that there was “no need and wants it done properly”.
88. The investigation then issued a final decision. The complainant requested a
review of this decision and complained about the way the investigation had been
conducted. He said that the investigator had misled him; she had told him she
would find in his favour if his council had misled him. He assumed that the
Ombudsman would record telephone calls (he was informed that this was not the
case). He said that he had also not been contacted by the investigator for a
month. He also said he wasn’t informed that he could have his case reviewed.
He requested that the person reviewing his complaint telephone him before a
decision was made.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 16
89. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. She
wrote to the complainant, noting that he had requested a telephone call but that
she believed she had enough information to respond to him. She said she had
reviewed how the investigator had handled his case and found no fault. She
noted that the investigator had written to the complainant to keep in contact with
him but that there had been a delay in issuing the draft decision and apologised
for this. She explained the circumstances when a review would be conducted
and said that the investigator was correct in advising the complainant that the
fact sheet explaining the full process would have been sent to him at the start of
the investigation.
90. The complainant submitted a service complaint about the Assistant Ombudsman
as she had written to him even though he is registered blind.
91. The Executive Director wrote to the complainant, explaining that the Assistant
Ombudsman had written to the complainant as he indicated at the start of his
complaint about his council that this was an appropriate means of
communication.
92. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's and Executive Director’s reviews and
response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the
circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
93. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and the investigator in
the Investigation Team would have been invaluable in reviewing this service
complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am
aware that this is being considered.
Staying informed
94. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of his
complaints. The investigator allowed the complainant an additional period to
respond to the Ombudsman on two occasions; once because the person who
helps him to read documents was away.
Outcomes
95. The initial service complaint was received on 27 November 2015 and the
Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant
on 21 December. The subsequent service complaint was received on 8 January
2016 and the Executive Director reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the
complainant on 26 January. Both service complaints were dealt with within the
published timescale of 20 working days.
96. The Assistant Ombudsman and Executive Director directly addressed the
complaints, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant.
97. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 17
Conclusion and recommendations
98. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
Recommendation
In my review conducted in February last year I recommended that the
Ombudsman considers the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of
the process rather than at the intake stage only. I am aware that this is already
under consideration.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 18
Complaint Six
Summary
99. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator from
November 2015. The complainant has mental health issues. He alleged that she
was not investigating him complaint and that she was a “hate criminal”.
100. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking
into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices.
101. I therefore make no recommendations.
Making a complaint
102. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. Although the
complainant has mental health issues there is no indication that the complainant
required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
103. The complainant could only be contacted by letter which he either threw away or
returned unopened. He alleged that the Ombudsman was ignoring his complaint
and that the investigator was a “hate criminal”. The Assistant Ombudsman
addressed this appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response
to the complainant.
Reasonableness
104. This service complaint relates to a case which was allocated to an investigator in
November 2015. The investigator attempted to speak to the complainant on the
telephone number he had provided but found this to be out of service. He had not
provided either a mobile telephone number or an email address so she wrote to
him inviting him to telephone her. The complainant returned this letter unopened
with a handwritten note suggesting it should be redirected to his council. The
investigator initiated enquiries with the council. A few days later the Ombudsman
received a letter from the complainant alleging that the investigator was not
investigating his complaint and inferring that the Ombudsman would be biased
because of his mental health issues.
105. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman who reviewed
the case and wrote to the complainant. She said that the investigator had not
done anything wrong, assuring him that his complaint was being investigated and
explaining the difficulty the investigator had in contacting him. She asked the
complainant to advise the Ombudsman how best to contact him.
106. Some weeks letter the Ombudsman received a letter from the complainant. He
alleged that the investigator was a “hate criminal” and that any mail sent to him
by the Ombudsman was thrown away unopened.
107. The investigator sought advice from the Assistant Ombudsman as she had no
other way of contacting the complainant. The Assistant Ombudsman said that the
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 19
complainant should be asked to cooperate with the Ombudsman’s investigation
or his complaint would be treated as withdrawn. This letter was also returned to
the Ombudsman. The investigation was therefore discontinued.
108. The complainant’s mental health issues were taken into account during this
investigation. Attempts were made to communicate effectively with him and I
have found no evidence of bias against him. I found the Assistant Ombudsman's
review and response to the complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all
of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
Staying informed
109. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of his
complaint. The complainant’s mental health issues were taken into account.
Outcomes
110. The initial service complaint was received on 17 December 2015 and the
Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant
on 21 January. This is one day outside the published timescale of 20 working
days.
111. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account
the information supplied by the complainant.
112. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
113. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
I therefore make no recommendations.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 20
Complaint Seven
Summary
114. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an
advisor in an intake team in July 2015. The complainant alleged that she had
made it clear to the adviser that she preferred not to be contacted by email. She
also claimed that she had told the advisor that she had power of attorney. The
adviser did not record relevant information and this delayed progress for several
months.
115. The Intake Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking
into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices.
116. The recording of telephone call has been destroyed in line with the
Ombudsman’s retention policy. I am aware that the Ombudsman is already
considering the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the
process. A review of the retention policy would assist subsequent enquiries such
as my reviews, particularly if a process to identify suitable cases for retention
beyond six months is introduced.
Making a complaint
117. This complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman which was referred to an
Intake Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the
complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint.
Scope
118. The complainant alleged that the adviser did not record relevant information and
this delayed progress for several months. The Intake Team Leader addressed
this appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the
complainant.
Reasonableness
119. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an
advisor in an intake team in July 2015. I have not had the opportunity to listen to
a recording of the call as it has been destroyed in line with the Ombudsman’s
retention policy (all telephone calls to the Intake Team are recorded and held for
up to six months - Information Manual, Part 3: Retention and disposal of
casework records, paragraph 2.1).
120. The issue with regards to power of attorney only came to light in January this
year during a telephone call between an investigator in an Assessment Team
and the complainant. The complainant said that she had informed the adviser in
the Intake Team. The investigator apologised as she was not aware and there
was no reference to this in the written complaint or any other information. The
complainant also said that she had asked for letters to be posted rather than sent
by email.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 21
121. The complainant subsequently complained in a letter to the Ombudsman. The
complaint was referred to an Intake Team Leader who listened to the telephone
conversation and responded to the complainant. He apologised for the delay in
progress. He said that there was no mention of power of attorney in the recorded
conversation. He agreed that that call could have been handled better and that
more information could have been recorded by the adviser. He thought that the
complainant had made it clear that she preferred not to receive emails and this
was not recorded as he would have expected.
122. As the recording of the telephone conversation has been destroyed since the
Intake Team Leader’s review, it is not possible to consider this as part of my
review. I have reviewed relevant documents and agree that there is no mention
of power of attorney until it came to light in January. Notes also record in some
detail attempts to communicate with the complainant by email and post and it is
apparent that both methods of communication have been unsuccessful on
occasion and that this has contributed to the delay.
123. There is no reason to question the Intake Team Leader’s review of the telephone
conversation. It would, however, have been helpful to my review if I had the
opportunity to also listen to the conversation.
124. I found the Intake Team Leader's review and response to the complainant to be
reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s
standard working practices.
Staying informed
125. The letter to the complainant is well written and addresses the specific nature of
her complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were
required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
126. The service complaint was received on 11 January 2016 and the Intake Team
Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 19 January,
within the published timescales of 20 working days.
127. The Intake Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account
the information supplied by the complainant, including her views.
128. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint
Conclusion and recommendations
129. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
130. It would, however, have been helpful to my review if I had the opportunity to also
listen to the conversation. I am aware that the Ombudsman is already
considering the feasibility of recording telephone calls at all stages of the
process. A review of the retention policy would assist subsequent enquiries such
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 22
as my reviews, particularly if a process to identify suitable cases for retention
beyond six months is introduced. This would enhance the transparency of the
organisation and demonstrate how the Ombudsman positively manages the
interactions between staff members and its users. It would also help to ensure
that opportunities for organisational learning and service improvement are not
missed. This is particularly important in those cases where it is apparent that the
caller wishes to register dissatisfaction with the service received from the
Ombudsman.
Recommendation
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the retention policy for telephone
calls and consider introducing a process to identify suitable cases, such as those
relating to complaints about the Ombudsman’s service, for retention beyond six
months.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 23
Complaint Eight
Summary
131. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator from
November 2015. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased, had
had not understood all of her complaint and had trivialised some aspects.
132. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint, taking
into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices.
133. I therefore make no recommendations.
Making a complaint
134. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. There is no
indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to
make her complaint.
Scope
135. The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to fully understand her
complaint and was biased. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this
appropriately in his review of the service complaint and responses to the
complainant.
Reasonableness
136. This service complaint relates to a case which was allocated to an investigator in
November 2015. The investigator contacted the complainant to discuss the case.
The complainant subsequently sent an email to the investigator. She was upset
at some of the comments made by the investigator and she questioned her
objectivity. She thought that the investigator had not understood all of her
complaint and had trivialised some aspects.
137. The investigator wrote to the complainant, apologising that she was unsettled by
their conversation. She explained that the purpose of their conversation was to
establish why the complainant was unhappy with her council, the aspects of her
complaint which she wished to pursue further and how the faults had affected
her. The investigator assured the complainant that she understood the key
aspects of her complaints. She explained that it was normal practice to contact
the council as part of her investigation but had yet to do so. The complainant
would be given an opportunity to comment on any information received. She
asked the complainant if she wished the service complaint to be forwarded to her
manager.
138. The complainant replied. She said that she expected the Ombudsman to use its
skill and expertise to determine the important aspects of her complaint rather
than being continuously asked to select them. She set out these out in some
detail. She also confirmed that she wished this service complaint to be passed to
a manager.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 24
139. This service complaint was passed to an Assistant Ombudsman who reviewed
the case and wrote to the complainant. He recognised that some complainants
consider that their written submission should be sufficient for the Ombudsman’s
investigation to proceed and acknowledged the complainant’s exasperation. He
said that the Ombudsman expected their investigators to be clear about which
matters they decide to investigate. An initial telephone call with complainants is a
key part of the process as it checks understanding of the complaint, gathers
further information and manages expectations. He said that he did not consider
that the investigator had acted inappropriately and it was clear that the
conversation enabled her to be clear about what enquiries she needed to send to
the council.
140. The complainant replied, alleging that the investigator was not impartial and that
the Assistant Ombudsman had not considered all aspects of her complaint. She
said that the Assistant Ombudsman appeared to have regarded her concerns as
a personal attack on the investigator rather than about the service she had
received. The Assistant Ombudsman considered that much of the original email
complaining about the telephone conversation was about her substantive
complaint about her council. Although the complainant had alleged that the
investigator was biased and favouring the council, it seems necessary to await
the investigator’s decision. He decided that he did not need to take any further
action and did not respond.
141. Some weeks later the complainant told the investigator that she was expecting a
response from the Assistant Ombudsman. He wrote to the complainant
explaining why he had not replied and that this remained his view.
142. I found both the Assistant Ombudsman's review and responses to the
complainant to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. Given the content of the
complainant’s reply to the Assistant Ombudsman’s first letter, it may have been
helpful to have replied to her at an earlier stage. This would have made the
Assistant Ombudsman’s view clear to the complainant and helped to manage her
expectations.
Staying informed
143. Letters to the complainant are well written and address the specific nature of her
complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were
required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
144. This service complaint was received on 11 November 2015. The investigator
replied to the complainant the next day. The service complaint was passed to an
Assistant Ombudsman on 13 November and he reviewed the circumstances and
wrote to the complainant on 24 November. This is within the published timescale
of 20 working days. The Assistant Ombudsman also replied to a subsequent
email from the complainant.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 25
145. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account
the information supplied by the complainant.
146. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
147. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices.
I therefore make no recommendations.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 26
Complaint Nine
Summary
148. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an investigator in an
Assessment Team between October and November 2015. The complainant said
he had not received some of the emails sent to him by the investigator. He had
also not received the investigator’s draft decision on his complaint and had
therefore missed the opportunity to comment before the investigator made a final
decision. He alleged that the investigator had not followed proper procedures.
149. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no
recommendations.
Making a complaint
150. This complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman and referred to an
Assessment Team Leader for internal review. There is no indication that the
complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint.
Scope
151. The complainant said that the investigator had not followed proper procedures in
communicating with him. The Assessment Team Leader addressed this
appropriately in her review and response to the complainant.
Reasonableness
152. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in October 2015 concerning a
complaint about his council. The Intake Team sent him an email requesting
further information and he telephoned in reply to the Ombudsman and also sent
written information. The intake Team subsequently sent the complainant two
more emails. The complaint was allocated to an investigator in an Assessment
Team on 18 November. He concluded that, without needing any further
information from the complainant, the Ombudsman was unable to investigate the
complaint. He sent the draft decision to the complainant by email and, when he
received no reply, issued a final decision.
153. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman on 8 December. He said he had not
received the emails sent to him by the Intake Team or the investigator in the
Assessment Team. He complained that the investigator had not followed proper
procedures, he had not been informed what would happen or the format of any
emails he would receive from the Ombudsman.
154. This service complaint was passed to an Assessment Team Leader who
reviewed the case and responded to the complainant. She explained that the
Ombudsman records all communications sent and received. As the complainant
had responded to the first email sent to him by the Intake Team, there was no
reason to suppose he would not receive any further emails. The team had
therefore sent him an email to inform him that his complaint had been passed to
an investigator for assessment as to whether the Ombudsman should investigate
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 27
his complaint and another providing a leaflet explaining how the Ombudsman
assesses complaints, what would happen next and the format of the
Ombudsman’s email addresses.
155. The investigator had made his decision in accordance with the Ombudsman’s
Assessment Code, and had sent this to the complainant using the same email
address. When it became apparent that the complainant had not received this,
the investigator resent the emails which the complainant received. The
investigator did not invite comment on this occasion.
156. The Assessment Team Leader considered that it would have been helpful had
this been offered so she gave the complainant a further opportunity to comment.
She concluded that there was no fault in the investigator’s actions.
157. I found the Assessment Team Leader's review and response to the complainant
to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the
Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no
recommendations.
Staying informed
158. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific
nature of his complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments
were required in communicating with the complainant.
Outcomes
159. The complaint was received on 9 December 2015 and the Assessment Team
Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 14
December. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days.
160. The Assessment Team Leader Team Leader directly addressed the complaint,
taking into account the information supplied by the complainant, including his
views.
161. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
162. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. I therefore make no
recommendations.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 28
Complaint Ten
Summary
163. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an advisor in an intake
team in February 2016. The complainant alleged that the advisor treated him with
derision and hostility and that she had not addressed his protected characteristic
during their telephone conversation. The adviser terminated the call but did not
record this service complaint or refer the matter to a manager.
164. The Customer Service Manager dealt appropriately with this service complaint,
taking into account the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s standard working
practices with one exception. I have previously recommended that the
Ombudsman considers issuing guidance to staff on referring callers and
complainants to supervisors. This is relevant to this service complaint.
165. I have also recommended that the guidance to staff on terminating telephone
calls is reviewed in light of this service complaint.
166. Information provided to staff in the Intake Team Manual conflicts with information
provided to complainants. I have recommended that this is reviewed.
Making a complaint
167. This complaint was raised in a telephone call to the Ombudsman. The
complainant repeatedly referred to his “protected characteristic” and that he did
not have to submit complaints in writing; he did not specify the protected
characteristic but it is reasonable to assume that it relates to a disability affected
his ability to either read or write. The adviser said that the complaint would
normally be in writing and asked the complainant what help he required to make
a complaint. This reflects the information provided to complainants (fact sheet
G4). This conflicts with the Intake Manual (paragraph 10) which states that
service complaints can also be presented orally. The adviser terminated the call
before the complainant provided any details of the help he needed.
168. The complainant subsequently repeated his service complaint in an email. He
asked for responses using a large font and this was done in the email sent to
him.
Scope
169. The complainant alleged that the adviser failed to make reasonable adjustments
and that he was treated with derision and hostility. The adviser also terminated
the telephone call but did not refer this to a manager or record the service
complaint.
170. The Customer Service Manager addressed this appropriately in his review of the
service complaint and response to the complainant with one exception; this is
reflected in my recommendations.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 29
Reasonableness
171. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an advisor in an intake
team. I have had the opportunity to listen to a recording of the call with the
complainant. The advisor was polite throughout the six minutes of conversation;
there is nothing which suggests that her manner was either hostile or degrading.
The complainant repeatedly referred to his “protected characteristic” without
specifying what these were or what help he required. He mentioned several
times, however, that he did not have to submit anything in writing. When the
complainant said that he wanted to complain about the service he had received
from the Ombudsman the adviser suggested this should be in writing, referring to
his ability to write emails to his council, but also asked the complainant what help
he required to make a complaint. When he asked to speak to a manager the
adviser told him that no one was available. She terminated the call when the
complainant became agitated and before he could provide any details.
172. There is nothing to indicate that the adviser recorded the service complaint or
referred the matter to a manager.
173. The complainant then sent an email to the Ombudsman. He alleged that the
adviser had treated him with derision and hostility and had refused to make a
reasonable adjustment. He also said that the adviser had refused to take details
of his service complaint over the telephone. He asked for responses using a
large font; this is a further indication of the nature of his protected characteristic
i.e. disability.
174. The email was referred to the Customer Service Manager who listened to the
telephone conversation and responded to the complainant. He said that, as the
complainant had emailed his council, he concluded it was reasonable for the
adviser to assume he was capable of making written submissions. He also
pointed out that it was only possible to make reasonable adjustments if staff were
aware of what adjustments were necessary. Although the adviser had asked this
of the complainant, he had not provided any information. He advised the
complainant to telephone the Ombudsman if he wished so that arrangements
could be made to take his complaint. The complainant replied by email, again
referring to his unspecified protected characteristics, and his view that the
Ombudsman was hostile and degrading towards him. He said he would seek a
remedy through the courts.
175. It is difficult to assess to what extent the complainant required adjustments to the
normal procedure for making complaints although it is reasonable to assume that
he has a visual impairment. I am satisfied that the adviser and the Customer
Service Manager made repeated attempts to establish the nature of the
complainant’s disability and the adjustments that were necessary. I have found
nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and professional or
that there was any discriminatory behaviour.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 30
176. Information about service complaints is included on the Ombudsman’s internet
site and in the relevant fact sheet (Fact sheet G4 – Complaints about us) which is
also available on the internet site.
177. This states that, if complainants are dissatisfied after discussing the complaint
with the member of staff they are dealing with, the complaint will be considered
by a senior member of staff. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, it
should normally be made in writing. The fact sheet also gives advice for
complainants who have difficulty in using the Ombudsman service, for example if
they are disabled. Complainants are advised to let the Ombudsman know so that
the help that may be provided can be discussed.
178. This conflicts with the Intake Manual (paragraph 10) which states that complaints
can also be presented orally (whereas the Investigation Manual refers to the fact
sheet and makes no mention of how a service complaint can be made).
179. The complainant wished to complain as he was clearly unhappy about the way
that the adviser had dealt with him. The adviser should have recorded the
contact on the ECHO database and referred it to a manager (paragraph 10.2 of
the Intake Team Manual). There is nothing which indicates she did so. This could
be construed as an attempt to prevent the service complaint from being
recorded.
180. The complainant also wished to speak to a supervisor. Paragraph 10.2 of the
Intake Team Manual sets out the process if a team’s supervisor is unable to deal
promptly with a service complaint. The investigator’s supervisor was apparently
not available but there is no indication that attempts were made to refer this
complaint to another supervisor. This could be construed as an attempt to
prevent or dissuade the caller from speaking to a supervisor.
181. Termination of telephone calls is addressed in paragraph 7.2 of the Intake Team
Manual. This refers to unacceptable behaviour such as offensive and abusive
remarks. Calls terminated for such reasons should be reported to a supervisor
immediately who will record the incident and decide whether more action is
required.
182. In this particular case the adviser terminated the call as the complainant said he
was becoming agitated and she concluded that she could not help him further.
This does not exactly match the criteria mentioned in the manual although the
complainant was clearly unsatisfied with the service he had received from the
Ombudsman. If he had not subsequently complained again the opportunity to
learn any lessons may have been lost, particularly as there was no record of this
service complaint at that stage.
183. I have previously recommended that the Ombudsman consider giving guidance
to staff that a caller or complainant, wishing to speak to a supervisor, should be
allowed to do so without unnecessary delay. This is particularly important in
those cases where it is apparent that the caller wishes to register dissatisfaction
with the service received from the Ombudsman. In these circumstances, the
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 31
matter should be referred to a supervisor without delay. It is inevitable that the
staff member’s manager will sometimes not be available. If this is the case, the
complainant should be referred to another manager.
184. This would enhance the transparency of the organisation and demonstrate how
the Ombudsman positively manages the interactions between staff members and
its users. It would also help to ensure that opportunities for organisational
learning and service improvement are not missed.
185. I found the Customer Service Manager's review and response to the complainant
to be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the
Ombudsman’s standard working practices. The failure to record the service
complaint and refer it to a manager should have been addressed although there I
have found nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and
professional or that there was any discriminatory behaviour.
Staying informed
186. The email to the complainant is well written and addresses the specific nature of
his complaint. It is written in a large font as requested by the complainant.
Outcomes
187. This service complaint was received on 2 February 2016 and the Customer
Service Manager reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant that
day.
188. The Customer Service Manager directly addressed the complaint, taking into
account the information supplied by the complainant, including his views.
189. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint.
Conclusion and recommendations
190. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with
the Ombudsman’s standard working practices. The failure to record the service
complaint and refer it to a manager should have been addressed although there I
have found nothing to suggest that the adviser’s manner was not polite and
professional or that there was any discriminatory behaviour.
191. There is nothing recorded under “Lessons Learned” on the Echo database in
respect of the failure to record the service complaint or refer it to a manager. The
Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff that a caller or
complainant, wishing to speak to a supervisor, should be allowed to do so.
192. This is particularly important in those cases where it is apparent that the caller
wishes to register dissatisfaction with the service received from the Ombudsman.
In these circumstances, the matter should be referred to a supervisor without
unnecessary delay.
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary March 2016
Page 32
193. This would enhance the transparency of the organisation and demonstrate how
the Ombudsman positively manages the interactions between staff members and
its users. It would also help to ensure that opportunities for organisational
learning and service improvement are not missed.
194. The Intake Team Manual contains information on how a service complaint can be
made which contradicts the information in the relevant fact sheet. The
Ombudsman should consider reviewing the relevant information so that
instructions to staff reflect the information to complainants.
195. The manual also gives guidance to staff on terminating telephone calls but the
circumstances in this case did not match the criteria for referring the matter to a
supervisor. The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the relevant guidance in
light of this service complaint.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Ombudsman should consider reiterating the guidance to staff in respect of
requests from callers to speak to a supervisor, including those instances where
dissatisfaction with the service provided is apparent.
Recommendation 2
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing the guidance given to staff on
termination of telephone calls to ensure that a manager is alerted to a potential
complaint about the Ombudsman’s service.
Recommendation 3
The Ombudsman should consider reviewing information contained in the Intake
Team Manual and that provided to complainants to ensure consistency.
Graham Manfield
External Reviewer
Recommended