Issue - meetings

The purpose of this report is to give the Audit & Governance Committee an overview of the council’s performance in relation to complaint handling in 2014/15 and how feedback from customers has been used to improve services.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Mark Irons, Head of Customer Services and Head of Customer and Communities Directorate Support

Jo Diggens, Customer Relations Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Customer Relations Manager introduced the report.

2.    In response to a query about the high number of complaints in Environment & Infrastructure, the Customer Relations Manager explained that the service affects many people within Surrey and complaints are often topical eg where there is flooding or road closures.  There had been a reduction in the proportion of complaints escalating to higher stages, reflecting the work Surrey Highways had undertaken to improve initial complaints handling.

3.    The Chairman queried whether an 80% within 10 working days response target was realistic for Schools & Learning and Children’s Social Care or if they should be more ambitious and work towards 90%.  The Customer Relations Manager highlighted the complexity of complaints in the Children, Schools and Families department and their priority of giving a good response as early as possible.  The average response time is 14 days.   The target is focussed on resolution and not simple acknowledgement.

4.    The committee discussed the difficulty in resolving complaints regarding third parties.  The Customer Relations Manager explained how the Streetworks Team works with utilities companies to check compliance with agreed procedures.  A mapping system had been launched providing more information to residents on utilities work.  The Head of Customer Services highlighted the contracts and Service Level Agreements with third parties which provide leverage to the Council.  The Chief Internal Auditor informed the committee that an audit of the permit scheme had recently been completed and this had given an Effective audit opinion to the Streetworks Team.  The team is doing as much as it can do.  However, this does not necessarily affect what utilities companies do.  The Customer Relations Manager accepted that the public does not recognise relationships with third parties but all the Council can do in some instances is provide information. 

5.    Members stated that communications from Highways had slightly improved, with the Streetworks Team circulating a weekly email on utility works coming up.  However, otherwise communications remained poor with Members not being told who is who in the new Highways structure.  The Customer Relations Manager highlighted that the new structure was still settling but that workshops were being arranged to look at communications.  The Customer Relations Team had been asked to get involved. 

6.    The Customer Relations Manager clarified that the Local Member would not be informed about individual complaints unless the complainant had involved them for support.

7.    The Chief Internal Auditor informed the committee that Internal Audit did not generally look at individual complaints but used high-level information to inform specific audits.

Action/Further information to note:

None.

RESOLVED:

That the committee NOTES the report.

Committee next steps:

To receive a further report in one year.

The purpose of this report is to give the Audit & Governance Committee an overview of the council’s complaint performance in 2013/14 and how feedback from customers has been used to improve services.

Declarations of Interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Dilip Agarwal, Customer Relations Manager, Adult Social Care

Jo Diggens, Customer Relations Manager, Customers and Communities

Mark Irons, Head of Customer Services and Head of Customer and Communities Directorate Support

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Head of Customer Services and Head of Customer and Communities Directorate Support introduced the report and explained how complaints were dealt with corporately and also within Children’s Services and Adult Social Care due to different statutory complaints procedures.  He explained that there was a trend of increasing numbers of complaints, while complaints handling performance had stayed fairly consistent.  The committee was also informed that the Children’s Service Statutory Complaints Report 2013-14 had been annexed to the committee’s report for completeness but that the report would be taken to the Children and Education Select Committee.  Any comments or recommendations from the Audit & Governance Committee would be taken forward with the Select Committee.

2.    Members queried whether there was a procedure for closing a complaint once it has been taken as far as is possible, even if the complainant does not agree.  The Customer Relations Manager from Adult Social Care informed the committee that any effective complaints procedure has a beginning, middle and end.  It should be accessible but there should be a mechanism for dealing with those people who do not accept the outcome.  There was a policy for dealing with unreasonably persistent complainants.

3.    Officers were asked why Children’s Service received high levels of complaints.  They explained that in Children’s Service, staff were often making decisions that were not welcomed by service users.  The highest level of complaints was about court proceedings.  The nature of this service meant that one party was likely to be unhappy about the outcome.  The Chairman pointed out that Adult Social Care had more service users than Children’s Service but Children’s Service had twice the number of complaints.  Officers agreed that Adult Social Care was a more positive service than Children’s Service and its input was generally more welcome.

4.    Members asked what the different categories of complaints cost the council to address.  The Head of Customer Services and Head of Customer and Communities Directorate Support stated that this was difficult to answer but that corporate complaints at Stage 2 had been calculated as costing £300 per complaint.  However, this did not take into account officer time within the service.

5.    The Head of Customer Services and Head of Customer and Communities Directorate Support informed the committee that Environment and Transport Select Committee receives a regular report on Highways complaints.  He also highlighted a performance report that the Local Highways Services Group Manager circulates to Members each month.  Members of the Audit & Governance Committee were unsure that they had seen this report.  Officers agreed to check on this (Recommendations tracker ref: A29/14).

6.    Officers confirmed that there was a process for identifying if an issue is a complaint or a service request.

Actions/Further information to be provided:

      i.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126