Local Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review. February Executive Summary

Transcription

1 Local Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review February 2017 Executive Summary 1. This review of service complaints covers the period from August 2016 to February I have examined 10 service complaints; one relating to intake teams, four relating to assessment teams and five relating to investigation teams. I have made recommendations in respect of only two of these service complaints; I have also made recommendations regarding two unrelated matters I found during my review. 2. All of the service complaints were addressed appropriately by managers. I have therefore made a small number of recommendations to enhance service delivery, based on the Ombudsman s core values. 3. It was necessary to identify and make adjustments to assist complainants to access the Ombudsman s service in two of the service complaints. I am pleased to report that I found that investigators and managers had correctly identified and addressed these needs in both cases. 4. I have previously commented on the importance of communicating with complainants before draft decisions are issued. This is also relevant in two cases in this review, one in the assessment and one in the investigation phase. 5. I have also previously recommended improvements to the recording of calls and the inclusion of an out of office facility. These issues are featured again in this review and I am pleased that positive action has been taken to address both issues. 6. I am aware that the Ombudsman has reviewed guidance 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. I am pleased to note that in another two cases the investigators took positive action themselves when dissatisfaction was apparent. 7. As usual I found the challenge/staff conduct complaint information form useful in conducting my review, particularly as it includes the member of staff s response to a service complaint. This form was only available in respect of a few of the service complaints. Whilst some of the information can also be found elsewhere, it would be helpful if there was either consistent use of this form or another method of capturing this information was developed. 8. I have set out my recommendations below. Graham Manfield External Reviewer

2 Reference Complaint One Recommendations I recommend that the investigator in the investigation team is reminded about the guidance on dealing with difficult complainants including where a complainant says they are recording a telephone conversation. Complaint Four I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews the way that letters to the Ombudsman which contain complaints about service are processed to ensure that they are brought to the attention of managers. Complaint Nine I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews the guidance contained in the Assessment Manual in respect of initial telephone calls and issuing draft decisions. Even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation would be helpful. If it is decided that it is not necessary the rationale should be recorded on the ECHO database. Complaint Ten I recommend that the Investigation Manual is amended to reflect the Ombudsman s guidance on contact with complainants before draft decisions are issued. Page 2

3 Complaint One Summary 9. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an assessment team in January The complainant alleged that the Team Coordinator had been racist, cold blooded and uncivilised. 10. The Assessment Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 11. I therefore make no recommendations in respect of this service complaint. 12. I have recommended that an investigator in an investigation team is reminded about the Ombudsman s guidance where a complainant says they are recording a telephone conversation. Making a complaint 13. This service complaint was raised in a telephone call with the Team Coordinator who referred it to an Assessment Team Leader for review. The complainant had been identified as vulnerable by his council and referred to a wide range of support services including a mental health reablement team. The complainant said that he was capable of looking after himself and that he did not have mental health problems (and also disclosed a hearing problem some months after he made his service complaint). Despite this, the Team Coordinator recognised that the complainant had adult care needs and discussed the case with an Assistant Ombudsman. It is clear from the notes I have seen that telephone conversations between the Ombudsman s staff and the complainant were difficult and largely ineffective. I do not consider that this prevented him from making his service complaint. Scope 14. The complainant said that Team Coordinator had been racist, cold blooded and uncivilised. The Assessment Team Leader addressed this appropriately in his review and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 15. The complainant originally referred a complaint to the Ombudsman in January Notes of the telephone conversation between the complainant and an investigator at that time indicate that it was difficult to communicate with him as he frequently interrupted the investigator and appeared impatient. It was decided that this complaint was premature and it was therefore not until September 2016 that the Team Coordinator spoke with the complainant. 16. Notes of telephone conversations between the Team Coordinator and the complainant clearly show how difficult it was to communicate with him. The complainant spoke at length, including about issues that were not relevant to his Page 3

4 complaint. Although the Team Coordinator could not understand much of what was said, he found it difficult to interject and terminated the call after 30 minutes. He sought advice from an Assessment Team Leader who advised the Team Coordinator to ask the complainant to set out his complaint in writing. 17. The complainant submitted correspondence to the Ombudsman and subsequently telephoned the Team Coordinator. Again, the complainant would not allow the Team Coordinator to speak, talking over him. The Team Coordinator terminated the telephone call and the complainant telephoned again a few minutes later. He accused the Team Coordinator of being rude and racist. The Team Coordinator attempted to speak but was unable to do so and terminated the call. The complainant then telephoned an Assessment Team Leader, alleging that the Team Coordinator had been racist, cold blooded and uncivilised. He also found it difficult to engage with the complainant but referred the complainant to the Team Coordinator s manager, another Assessment Team Leader. 18. The Assessment Team Leader reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant. He explained that he had looked at notes of conversations with the Team Coordinator and information about telephones calls between the complainant and other members of staff. He said that he could find no evidence to support the complainant s allegations. The Team Coordinator was trying to give advice to progress the case and, as the complainant would not allow the Team Coordinator to speak, he was unable to do so. He did not uphold the service complaint. The complainant subsequently telephoned the Assessment Team Leader who again explained why he had not agreed with the complainant. 19. A decision was made to pass the case for investigation in light of the complainant s vulnerabilities. Notes indicate that communication with the complainant continued to be difficult throughout the investigation. 20. I have also been provided with a recording of a telephone conversation between the complainant and an Intake Team Leader. It was difficult for the Intake Team Leader to communicate with the complainant. Much of what the complainant said appears irrelevant and he talked incessantly, not allowing the Intake Team Leader to speak. The Intake Team Leader was eventually able to establish that this service complaint related to an assessment team and advised the complainant he would forward details to the Assessment Team Leader. He also had to terminate the telephone call. 21. Recordings of telephone calls between the complainant and the investigator and the Assessment Team Leader would have been useful in reviewing this service complaint. I have previously recommended this to the Ombudsman and I am aware that this is being considered. I am, however, satisfied that the written notes I have seen reflect conversations and that efforts were made to effectively communicate with the complainant notwithstanding the difficulties caused by his behaviour. Page 4

5 22. It is readily apparent that the complainant has mental health problems. The Ombudsman s equality and diversity policy recognises the need to take measures to make sure that disadvantaged groups and individuals can use the service and aims to promote equal access to the service for all users. The Ombudsman also gives staff guidance on making reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs. It sets out how mental health problems may affect people and the need to be flexible in dealing with them. They should be consulted about what arrangements they need to help them. It recognises that there is no easy answer to dealing with people with mental health needs and that advice should be sought where necessary. 23. It is clear from the notes I have seen and the recording of the telephone conversation that the Ombudsman s staff recognised the complainant needed additional help and made reasonable adjustments to allow him to access the service. 24. 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. 25. I would like to draw the Ombudsman s attention to an unrelated matter. For my review of this service complaint I was provided with notes which also cover the investigation of this case by an investigation team. The investigator notes that the complainant said that he was recording their telephone conversation. The investigator told the complainant that they did not assent to the recording of any conversation. 26. This was a feature of a service complaint I reviewed in September The Ombudsman has issued guidance to staff on dealing with difficult complainants including where a complainant says they are recording the call. It explains that there is nothing in law to prevent complainants recording telephone calls with the Ombudsman and that there should be no reason why a call should be ended just because a complainant says that they are recording it. If an investigator has any concerns about a complainant recording a call, they should discuss them with their line manager. 27. Although it is clear that this was a difficult conversation, the investigator s comments do not reflect this guidance. I have also been told that the Ombudsman is in the process of implementing a selective call recording system where staff member will be able to initiate call recordings for individual outbound and inbound calls. The circumstances of this case would appear to be suitable for such recording. 28. I therefore recommend that the investigator is advised accordingly. This will increase transparency, contributing to public reassurance in the role of the Ombudsman. Page 5

6 Staying informed 29. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific nature of his complaint. Notes of the telephone conversation between the Assessment Team Leader and the complainant indicate this also addressed the specific nature of his complaint. 30. It is clear that the Assessment Team Leader made adjustments when communicating with the complainant taking into account his mental health problems. After this case had been passed to an investigation team the complainant disclosed a hearing problem. At the time of this service complaint, however, there was no indication of this issue. Outcomes 31. The service complaint was received on 21 September 2016 and the Assessment Team Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on the 27 September This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 32. The Assessment Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views. 33. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 34. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 35. I therefore make no recommendations in respect of this service complaint. Recommendation I recommend that the investigator in the investigation team is reminded about the guidance on dealing with difficult complainants including where a complainant says they are recording a telephone conversation. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 6

7 Complaint Two Summary 36. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in December The complainant alleged that the investigator was bias and that the investigation had been delayed. 37. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 38. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 39. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 40. The complainant alleged that the investigator was bias and that the investigation had been delayed. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 41. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team on 7 December The investigator did not begin her enquiries until 9 February She wrote to the complainant, apologising for the lack of contact and the delay. She also gave details of her manager, an Assistant Ombudsman, and included information about how the complainant could submit a service complaint. 42. The complainant replied that, whilst progress had been slow, she was not prepared to complain about the investigator. 43. There was a long delay before the council replied to the investigator s enquiries as they wanted a meeting with the complainant to take place before they submitted their comments. The investigator sent these comments to the complainant on 18 March and also asked her for comments following her meeting with her council on 24 March. The complainant also sent several s to the investigation with further information. 44. The investigator sent two further letters on 20 April and 28 April and there appears to be no further contact until the investigator issued a draft decision on 3 June. The complainant responded and said she was disappointed with the lack of depth of the inquiry. 45. The investigator issued her final decision with a covering letter to the complainant on 29 July She said that she was sorry that the complainant was Page 7

8 dissatisfied with her investigation. The investigator said she had carefully considered all of the complainant s comments and was satisfied that she was able to reach a view. 46. On 26 August the complainant requested that the decision was reviewed and this was passed to the investigator for comment. The investigator noted that the complainant had made reference to her handling of the case and considered that this should be treated as a service complaint. This was referred to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. 47. The Assistant Ombudsman wrote to the complainant. She acknowledged that there had been a long delay in the investigation and, whilst the investigator had sent some s about the delay, this fell short of the Ombudsman s standards and apologised. She also explained that she could see that the investigator had considered comments and information from the complainant and the council and she had found fault with some of the council s actions. The Assistant Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the investigator was biased. 48. 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 49. 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 50. This service complaint was received on 26 August 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 26 September This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 51. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 52. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 53. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 54. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 8

9 Complaint Three Summary 55. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in December The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to understand his complaint and was obtuse in post decision correspondence. 56. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 57. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 58. This service complaint was raised in an to the Ombudsman. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 59. The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to understand his complaint and was obtuse in post decision correspondence. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 60. This service complaint relates to a case assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in December Notes show that the investigator discussed this case with the complainant in January 2016 and April The notes also contained detailed analysis. The investigator issued a draft decision in June 2016 to which the complainant submitted comments. Notes show a further analysis of the case before the investigator issued a final decision. 61. The complainant wrote to the investigation as he disagreed with the final decision. The investigator discussed the case with the complainant and provided information about challenging the decision and making a service complaint. 62. The complainant sent further information to which the investigator responded after consulting an Assistant Ombudsman. He also recorded a further analysis of the case based on this information. 63. In an to the investigator the complainant said he was being obtuse. He also sent further s which questioned the investigator s understanding of his complaint. The investigator replied that, in view of the complainant s continuing dissatisfaction with his investigation, he had referred this to an Assistant Ombudsman as a service complaint. 64. The complainant sent a further three s to the investigator and the Assistant Ombudsman before she wrote to him. She said that she had reviewed the case Page 9

10 and was satisfied that the investigator fully understood the complaint and that the decision was comprehensive, clear and evidence based. The investigator had also taken time to speak to the complainant and considered information from the complainant after the final decision. She did not uphold this service complaint. 65. 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 66. The letter to the complainant is 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 67. This service complaint was received on 15 August 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 9 September This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 68. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views. 69. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 70. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 71. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 10

11 Complaint Four Summary 72. This service complaint relates to a case assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in April The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to understand his complaint and not included all aspects of his complaint in enquiries to the council. 73. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 74. The complainant s dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman s service should have been identified and addressed some weeks earlier. 75. I have therefore recommended that the Ombudsman reviews the way that letters to the Ombudsman which contain complaints about service are processed to ensure that they are brought to the attention of managers. Making a complaint 76. This complaint was raised using the Ombudsman s service complaint form and referred to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 77. The complainant alleged that the investigator had failed to understand his complaint and had not included all aspects of his complaint in enquiries to the council. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 78. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in April 2016 concerning a complaint about his council. It was passed to an investigator in an investigation team who contacted the complainant on 21 June to discuss his complaint. The investigator then made enquiries with the council and, after receiving the reply, sent the complainant a draft decision on 21 July inviting him to comment. 79. The complainant responded to the investigator. He questioned the factual accuracy of the decision and asked the investigator to consider further comments. 80. The complainant also wrote to the Ombudsman on 24 July, complaining that the draft decision contained factual errors and this was indicative of a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding his complaint and no in depth investigation. He asked the Ombudsman to look into this. This letter was passed to the investigator but there is no indication that it was treated as a service complaint. Page 11

12 81. The investigator wrote to the complainant on 10 August with his final decision. He said he sorry that the complainant felt that he had not properly summarised or understood the complaint. He said that the complainant s letter to the Ombudsman had been passed to him and that he had amended the statement of reasons to better reflect the points raised by the complainant but this did not alter his view. He also provided information about the service complaint process on the Ombudsman s website. 82. The complainant subsequently submitted a service complaint alleging the investigator had ignored his submissions and had made factual errors which indicated a misunderstanding or lack of interest in the substance of his complaint. This was referred to an Assistant Ombudsman. 83. The Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the service complaint and wrote to the complainant. She said she had reviewed the case and could see no evidence that the investigator had failed to include all aspects of the complaint. The final decision was clearly argued and the investigator fully explained his view in the accompanying letter. She was satisfied that the investigator had identified and focussed on the key areas of the complaint. She did not uphold the service complaint. 84. 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. 85. I consider that the complainant s letter to the Ombudsman on 24 July should have been treated as a service complaint, recorded as such and brought to the attention of an Assistant Ombudsman. This would not have affected the outcome of this service complaint as the complainant subsequently made the same complaint using the Ombudsman s form on the website. If he had not done so an opportunity for organisational learning and service improvement may have been missed. 86. In earlier reviews I emphasised the importance of ensuring that dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman s service is brought to the attention of managers. This applies to letters addressed to the Ombudsman. Staying informed 87. The letter to the complainant is 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 88. The service complaint was received on 6 September 2016 and the Assistant Ombudsman wrote to the complainant on 3 October This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 89. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views. Page 12

13 90. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 91. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices once it had been referred to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. 92. The complainant s concerns should have been dealt with as a service complaint some weeks earlier. The complainant s letter to the Ombudsman should have been referred to an Assistant Ombudsman for review. Recommendation I recommend that the Ombudsman reviews the way that letters to the Ombudsman which contain complaints about service are processed to ensure that they are brought to the attention of managers. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 13

14 Complaint Five Summary 93. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in August The complainant alleged that the investigator was bias and he had not returned her telephone calls. 94. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 95. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 96. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman. The complainant disclosed that she has mental health issues. It was apparent that the communication with the complainant would have been improved by the use of an advocate and the investigator suggested that the complainant obtained this support. This did not happen although I do not consider this prevented her from making her service complaint. Scope 97. The complainant alleged that the investigator was bias and he had not returned her telephone calls The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 98. This service complaint relates to a somewhat complicated case assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in August The investigator did not contact the complainant until 8 September. Notes show that it was a difficult conversation and the investigator asked whether there was someone who could advocate on her behalf. She undertook to get someone to represent her within the following two weeks. The investigator tried to telephone her on 14 and 17 October without success. The complainant and her partner contacted the Ombudsman on 19 December and was advised to speak to the investigator. There is nothing to indicate any contact, however, until 5 January when the complainant telephoned the investigator, asking when she would be able to see the draft decision. In the intervening period the complainant had sent 18 s containing additional information to the investigator. 99. Notes show that this was also a difficult conversation. The investigator noted that he interrupted her to try and focus on the issues which he was investigating but that this had aggravated her. The complainant said she was going to report the investigator to his manager The complainant then spoke to an Assistant Ombudsman, alleging that the investigator was bias and had not returned her telephone calls. Notes show this Page 14

15 was also a difficult conversation; the complainant apparently shouted throughout and gave the Assistant Ombudsman little opportunity to speak. Although the Assistant Ombudsman asked the complainant to explain how the investigator had been biased, she went through details of her case instead. He said he would review the case to see if there was any evidence of bias. The complainant asked for the contact details for the Executive Director and, when the Assistant Ombudsman declined to provide his telephone number, said it showed he was not impartial The Assistant Ombudsman wrote to the complainant. He regretted that, despite repeated requests to explain her concerns about the investigator, she had not been able to do this. He said that it was not the Ombudsman s policy to provide the Executive Director s telephone number but this does not mean he was impartial. He explained that he had considered the case papers and had found nothing to suggest that the investigator was biased. He acknowledged that the investigator had not answered the complainant s queries following receipt of her s and said that he and the investigator apologised for this It was apparent that the complainant has mental health problems. The Ombudsman s equality and diversity policy recognises the need to take measures to make sure that disadvantaged groups and individuals can use the service and aims to promote equal access to the service for all users. The Ombudsman also gives staff guidance on making reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs. It sets out how mental health problems may affect people and the need to be flexible in dealings with them. They should be consulted about what arrangements they need to help them. It recognises that there is no easy answer to dealing with people with mental health needs and that advice should be sought where necessary Communication with the complainant would have been helped by the provision of an advocate. This was suggested by the investigator but there is no indication that this had been put in place. It is clear from the notes I have seen that the Ombudsman s staff recognised the complainant needed additional help and made reasonable adjustments to allow her to access the service, 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 105. The letter to the complainant is well written and addresses the specific nature of her complaint. Outcomes 106. This service complaint was received on 5 January 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 10 January This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. Page 15

16 107. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 109. 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 Page 16

17 Complaint Six Summary 111. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an Assessment Team in August The complainant alleged that the investigator had not accurately recorded his complaint against his council in the summary of the decision statement. The investigator refused to change this when asked by the complainant and failed to provide details of his line manager and the Ombudsman s service complaint procedure The Assessment Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices I raised the lack of an out of office facility in the case management system after my last review as this impacted on the service provided to a complainant. It would also have been helpful in this case as the complainant was unaware that the investigator was on leave. I understand that this facility will be available following an upgrade to the ECHO database which is expected to take place in May I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 115. This service complaint was raised using the Ombudsman s service complaint form and referred to an Assessment Team Leader for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 116. The complainant alleged that the investigator had not accurately recorded his complaint against his council in the summary of the decision statement. He refused to change this when asked by the complainant and failed to provide details of his line manager and the Ombudsman s service complaint procedure. The Assessment Team Leader addressed these issues appropriately in his review and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 117. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an Assessment Team in August The investigator discussed the case with the complainant and sent him a draft decision on 10 August inviting him to comment. After he issued a final decision on 12 August the complainant wrote to the investigator. He said that the description of his complaint in the summary was not accurate. He wanted this to be amended before the decision was published on the Ombudsman s website. Page 17

18 118. The investigator sent a letter to the complainant on 12 August, shortly before he went on leave for a week. He explained that decisions were anonymised and he could see no grounds to depart from the Ombudsman s usual practice The complainant replied that the issue he raised was that the summary did not include an issue central to his complaint. He asked for details of the investigator s line manager. He sent further s on 16 and 17 August as he had not received a response to his earlier request. He submitted a service complaint form on 18 August When the investigator returned from leave on 22 August he responded to the complainant. He explained that he had been on leave when the complainant made his requests. He said that the complainant had opportunities to raise issues during their discussion and when he had received the draft decision. The investigator s view was that the summary was an accurate reflection of the complaint An Assessment Team Leader reviewed the case and wrote to the complainant. He set out the parameters of investigations conducted by the Ombudsman and explained the reasons why the investigator had summarised the complaint. He said that, whilst it may have been helpful for a detailed explanation to have been provided sooner, he considered the investigator s response correct and proportionate The Assessment Team Leader also explained that the investigator had left the office to go on leave before the complainant had sent his on 12 August. This and subsequent s had been noted as had the service complaint. He explained that the nature of the Ombudsman s work is not time critical and the organisation does not therefore aim to acknowledge or respond to contact within a few days. He did not consider the complainant s further requests in the following few days to be reasonable The Assessment Team Leader considered that there was no reason for the investigator to have referred to the service complaints process. The complainant was able to make a complaint before he had received a response from the investigator. He was confident that, had the complainant waited for a response to his first and they had subsequently discussed the matter, the investigator would have explained the service complaints process 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 In my last review in November 2016 the lack of an out of office facility in the case management system impacted on the service provided to the complainant. It would also have been helpful if the complainant in this case had been made aware that the investigator was on leave I understand that this facility will be available following an upgrade to the ECHO database which is expected to take place in May. Page 18

19 Staying informed 127. The letter to the complainant is timely, well written and addresses the specific nature of his complaint. Outcomes 128. The service complaint was received on 18 August 2016 and the Assessment Team Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on the 8 September This is within the published timescale of 20 working days The Assessment Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 131. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices Whilst the lack of an out of office facility in the case management system impacted on the service provided to the complainant I understand that this facility will be available following an upgrade to the ECHO database which is expected to take place in May I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 19

20 Complaint Seven Summary 134. This service complaint relates to a case considered by an Assessment Team Leader in September The complainant alleged that he had been dismissive, rude and talked over her during a telephone conversation. The service complaint was reviewed by the Head of Assessment The Head of Assessment dealt appropriately with the service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 137. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the Assessment Team Leader who passed it to the Head of Assessment for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 138. The complainant said that the Assessment Team Leader had been dismissive, rude and talked over her during a telephone conversation. The Head of Assessment addressed this appropriately in his review and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 139. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in June 2016 concerning a complaint about her council. In September an Assessment Team Leader telephoned the complainant to discuss the case. Notes of their conversation indicate that she was not happy with his view that the case should not be investigated. She said that he had been patronising, abrupt and rude and wanted to complain about him. The Assessment Team Leader subsequently wrote to the complainant confirming his decision. He also asked her to complete a service complaint form and return it so that it could be passed to a senior manager The complainant wrote to the Ombudsman on 15 October. She said she was unhappy with the Assessment Team Leader s decision but also with his attitude towards her. She said she was shocked and distressed about the way he had spoken to her. She found him patronising, condescending, dismissive, disinterested, defensive and rude. He did not appear to listen and was blinkered and narrow minded This service complaint was considered by the Head of Assessment. He wrote to the complainant on 2 November 2016 explaining that, although the Ombudsman was in the process of commissioning call recording, this was not available at that time. He said that he often heard the Assessment Team Leader talking by phone Page 20

21 and, whilst he was aware that the Assessment Team Leader sometimes had to communicate news which was likely to be poorly received, he had not observed him displaying the behaviours the complainant attributed to him He had, however, looked at the contemporaneous notes made by the Assessment Team Leader and that it was clear that the conversation was not easy for either him or the complainant. He considered that the Assessment Team Leader had carefully considered the case but had concluded that he was unable to intervene. He also asked the Assessment Team Leader for his view, His recollection was that, whilst he was firm that it was not a matter that the Ombudsman could intervene in, it was not his intention to patronise the complainant. The Head of Assessment did not uphold the service complaint 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 I have been told that the Ombudsman is in the process of implementing a selective call recording system where staff member will be able to initiate call recordings for individual outbound and inbound calls. The circumstances of this case would appear to be suitable for such recording I therefore make no recommendations. Staying informed 146. 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 147. The service complaint was received on 15 October 2016 and the Head of Assessment wrote to the complainant on 2 November This is within the published timescale of 20 working days The Head of Assessment directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of the service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 149. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices; I note that a selective call recording system is to be implemented I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 21

22 Complaint Eight Summary 151. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an advisor in an intake team in September She was not happy with the way the advisor had spoken to her. The complainant alleged that the advisor had claimed she had shouted when she hadn t The Intake Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 154. This service complaint was raised in a telephone call to an Intake Team. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 155. The complainant was not happy with the way the adviser had spoken to her. She alleged that the advisor had claimed she had shouted when she hadn t. The Intake Team Leader addressed this appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 156. This service complaint relates to a conversation between the complainant and an advisor in an intake team in September I have listened to recordings of this conversation and those between the complainant and the Intake Team Leader as part of my review of this service complaint The advisor established that the complainant had already referred this case to the Ombudsman and a decision not to investigate had been made by an investigator in an assessment team. The complainant did not agree that this was a correct decision and the advisor explained the process for reviewing the decision. During the telephone conversation the complainant became increasingly loud. When the advisor attempted to address this the complainant immediately began to scream insults and the advisor therefore terminated the call The complainant telephoned again to complain about the advisor. She told an Intake Team Leader that the advisor had accused her of shouting when she hadn t although she accepted she had at the end of the call. The Intake Team Leader said he would listen to a recording of the conversation The Intake Team Leader contacted the complainant. He said that the advisor had been correct to ask the complainant not to shout and to end the telephone call when she became abusive and prevented the advisor from speaking. The Page 22

23 complainant became abusive to the Intake Team Leader who confirmed that he would not uphold her complaint. She asked for details of the Customer Service Manager which were provided The recordings of telephone conversations and notes I have seen confirm the Intake Team Leader s assessment of this service complaint. Similar behaviour is also noted in relation to the complainant s earlier conversation with an investigator in an assessment team 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 162. The conversation between the Intake Team Leader and the complainant addressed the specific nature of her complaint. There is no indication that additional help or adjustments were required in communicating with her. Outcomes 163. The service complaint was received on 16 September and the Intake Team Leader reviewed the circumstances and telephoned the complainant the same day The Intake Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. Conclusion and recommendations 165. 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 Page 23

24 Complaint Nine Summary 167. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an Assessment Team in June The complainant alleged that she had not taken account of all aspects of his complaint and failed to explain why she had not done so The Assessment Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices I have recommended that the Ombudsman reviews guidance contained in the Assessment Manual in respect of initial telephone calls even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision. Making a complaint 170. This complaint was raised in a letter to the Ombudsman and referred to an Assessment Team Leader for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 171. The complainant said that investigator had not taken account of all aspects of his complaint and failed to explain why she had not done so. The Assessment Team Leader addressed this appropriately in her review and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 172. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman in August 2016 concerning a complaint about his council. The complaint was passed to an Assessment Team and assigned to an investigator on 8 September The investigator sent a draft decision with a covering letter to the complainant that same day The complainant attempted to contact the investigator later that day and then sent her an . The investigator asked him to submit any further comments by which he did on 12 September. The investigator acknowledged this and issued a final decision the next day The complainant wrote to the investigator on 16 September and 19 September, challenging the decision. In the last letter he complained that the investigator had misunderstood his complaint and had rushed to a decision without proper consideration. She had also failed to respond to his telephone calls This service complaint was passed to an Assessment Team Leader. The complainant was informed by an Assessment Team Co-ordinator but there is no indication that he was provided with any information about how his service complaint would be dealt with. Page 24