Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Service Complaint Review August 2017 Executive Summary 1. This review of service complaints covers the period from February to August 2017. I have examined 10 service complaints; one relating to intake teams, three relating to assessment teams and six relating to investigation teams. I have made recommendations in respect of only three of these service complaints. 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. I have previously commented on the importance of communicating with complainants before draft decisions are issued. This is also relevant in two cases dealt with by assessment teams in this review. I am pleased to note that the guidance on this subject in the assessment manual was updated in July. I have recommended improvements to the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants. 4. I have found the recording of calls during the intake stage useful in conducting my reviews and previously recommended that this facility is also available during the later stages of the Ombudsman s process. This is relevant to several service complaints in this review. I have been told that the Ombudsman introduced a selective call recording system in July this year which enables staff members to initiate call recording for individual outbound and inbound calls. The use of the system should be a factor considered by managers conducting reviews of service complaints in future. I hope that the use of this system will increase transparency, demonstrate accountability and increase public reassurance. 5. I have set out my recommendations below. Graham Manfield External Reviewer
LGO Service Complaint Review Executive Summary February 2017 Reference 16 018 228 Recommendations I recommend that the Intake Team Leader is reminded about the guidance on dealing with difficult complainants including where a complainant says they are recording a telephone conversation. 16 011 279 16 014 337 I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Include information about the Ombudsman s policy on publishing decisions. I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 279 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an assessment team in November 2016. The complainant alleged that the investigator had been hostile, unprofessional and lacked empathy. She also expected to receive a telephone call before the draft decision and should have been informed at an early stage that decisions are usually published. 2. The Assessment Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. Following my review in February this year the Assessment Manual has recently being updated to include guidance that, even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation with the complainant would be helpful. This is also relevant to this service complaint. 4. I have recommended that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to make clear the contact complainants can expect from the Ombudsman and to include information about the Ombudsman s policy on publishing decisions. Making a complaint 5. This service complaint was raised in a letter to the investigator who referred it to an Assessment Team Leader for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 6. The complainant said that the investigator had been hostile, unprofessional and lacked empathy. She also expected to receive a telephone call before the draft decision and said that she should have been informed at an early stage that decisions are usually published. 7. The Assessment Team Leader addressed these issues appropriately in his review and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 8. The complainant referred a complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2016. An investigator in an assessment team decided that the complaint was not one that the Ombudsman would investigate and sent a draft decision to the complainant. The complainant left several voicemail messages disagreeing with the draft decision and expressed concern that the decision may be published. She wanted the investigator to telephone her. The complainant also sent an email to the investigator which contained sexist views about men and asked that a female member of staff contact her. 9. The investigator telephoned the complainant, explained that there were no female staff members available and asked if the complainant would speak with him as the person dealing with her complaint. She expressed her unhappiness with the draft Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 279 August 2017 decision and repeatedly told the investigator that she would not allow him to speak unless he guaranteed that the decision would not be published. When the investigator attempted to explain how the Ombudsman could apply discretion on publication the complainant interrupted the investigator who warned her that he would terminate the call. He ended the call when the complainant said that she was not prepared to let him speak. 10. The complainant sent several emails to the investigator. She alleged that he had been rude during their conversation, that he was unsympathetic and that his communication skills were poor. 11. The investigator discussed the case with an Assessment Team Leader and it was decided not to publish the decision. He wrote to the complainant and also reminded her that she could respond to the draft decision. 12. The complainant responded that she should have been informed at an early stage that decisions are usually published. She thought the investigator had been insensitive. 13. The investigator discussed the case again with the Assessment Team Leader and issued a final decision. 14. In May 2017 the Ombudsman received a letter from an advocate on behalf of the complainant. The letter contained allegations that the investigator had been hostile and unprofessional. The complainant had been expecting a telephone call but had only received the draft decision. When she asked the investigator not to publish the decision he said he could do what he liked. As a result of her experiences with her council and the Ombudsman her mental health issues had once again deteriorated. The complainant wanted the investigator s lack of empathy and support and the reasons why the case was not investigated to be treated as a service complaint. 15. The Assessment Team Leader reviewed the service complaint and replied to the advocate. He enclosed a copy of the acknowledgement letter sent to the complainant which stated that the Ombudsman would contact her; this did not necessarily mean by telephone. The investigator had sufficient information to reach a view without speaking to the complainant. 16. The Assessment Team Leader also sent copies of the case notes which included the exchanges between the complainant and the investigator. He explained that he was not party to the telephone calls but could see nothing specific which would lead him to uphold her complaint. He explained why the decision had not been published. He also said that he recognised that the complainant may have found the events leading up to her complaint stressful and difficult but this did not excuse her offensive remarks which the Ombudsman would not tolerate. The Assessment Team Leader said that he found no evidence that the investigator had failed to follow procedures or had spoken to the complainant in the manner she alleged. 17. I have considered all of the relevant documents and notes regarding this service complaint and guidance contained in the Assessment Manual. This sets out expectations for contact with complainants. Initial telephone calls can be a helpful Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 279 August 2017 way of introducing the investigator and talking people through the assessment process, as well as giving them an opportunity to ask any questions or reframe their complaint. Direct engagement with complainants tests investigators understanding of complaints, enables them to form balanced views and demonstrates farness so, although not compulsory, it is seen as essential in most cases. This is not necessary if the complaint already contains sufficient information to enable a sound decision to be made. A record should nevertheless be made of telephone calls or reasons for not making an initial call. 18. The manual also gives guidance about draft decisions. These are seen as particularly important in situations where decisions have been made on limited evidence or where it has not been possible to speak to the complainant to test their understanding of a complaint. They allows complainants an opportunity to comment on a complex and difficult matter or submit additional information and may represent the complainant s only opportunity to challenge a decision it is foreseeable they may find hard to accept. 19. Communication between the Ombudsman s staff and complainants has been a regular feature in previous reviews. In February 2015 I recommended that the Ombudsman reviewed guidance to investigators with regards to initial communication with complainants. In particular, I recommended that it was made clear that there should be reasonable attempts at communication and that this was particularly important where it is proposed to proceed to draft decisions. The Ombudsman included this in Talking Points, the staff newsletter. 20. I reviewed a service complaint in February this year where a draft decision had been issued without any communication with the complainant. The Ombudsman accepted my recommendation that, even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation with the complainant would be helpful. If it is decided that it is not necessary the rationale should be recorded on the ECHO database. The Assessment Manual has recently been updated to reflect this. 21. I have also considered the complainant s expectation that she would receive a telephone call; this is featured in another service complaint in this review. The standard acknowledgement letter only explains that the complainant will be contacted. It may be help to manage complainants expectations if it is made explicit that they may not necessarily receive a telephone call. 22. The letter also mentions that complainants have an opportunity to comment on draft decisions. It may also help to manage complainants expectations if it is made explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. 23. A substantial feature of this service complaint was the Ombudsman s policy on publishing decisions. This is explained in a leaflet made available to all complainants and on the Ombudsman s website. It may be useful, however, if this is also included in the acknowledgement letter. Page 3
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 279 August 2017 24. The advocate acting on behalf of the complainant some months after she made her complaint mentioned the complainant s mental health issues. I have therefore considered whether reasonable adjustments should have been made to allow her to access the service in line with the Ombudsman s equality and diversity policy. I have found no evidence that this issue would have been apparent to the Ombudsman s staff up to this point. 25. 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. 26. I have been told that the Ombudsman introduced a selective call recording system in July this year. This enables staff members to initiate call recordings for individual outbound and inbound calls. The circumstances of this case would appear to be suitable for such recording. 27. The Assessment Manual has already being updated in relating to initial contact with complainants following my recommendation in February this year. 28. I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Include information about the Ombudsman s policy on publishing decisions. Staying informed 29. The letter to the complainant s advocate 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 30. The service complaint was received on 18 May 2017 and the Assessment Team Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant s advocate on the 1 June 2017. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 31. The Assessment Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 32. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 33. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 34. I note that, following my recommendation in February this year, the Assessment Manual was updated in July in relation to initial contact with complainants. Page 4
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 279 August 2017 Recommendation I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Include information about the Ombudsman s policy on publishing decisions. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 5
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 526 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in December 2016. The complainant was unhappy with the handling of her complaint by the investigator and wanted it reassigned. 2. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 4. This service complaint was raised in a telephone call to an adviser in an intake team. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 5. The complainant was unhappy with the handling of her complaint by the investigator and wanted it reassigned. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in December 2016. The complainant wanted the investigator to view video and listen to audio recordings. These could not be sent electronically to the investigator because of the size of the files so she requested that he visit her home to do this. Having discussed this request with an Assistant Ombudsman the investigator told the complainant that the files would not assist his investigation. 7. The complainant was unhappy with this and contacted an adviser in an intake team. She wanted the complaint allocated to another investigator. 8. This service complaint was reviewed by an Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. She explained that investigators do not usually visit complainants. The investigator had discussed this case with her and she explained why she thought a visit was unnecessary. She did not consider that the investigator had done anything wrong in the way he had conducted his investigation. She declined this request. 9. 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. Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 011 526 August 2017 Staying informed 10. 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 11. This service complaint was received on 16 June 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 13 July 2017. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 12. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 13. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 14. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 15. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 012 853 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. The complainant alleged that there had been delays and long gaps in the investigator s communication with her. 2. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 4. This service complaint was raised in an email to the Ombudsman. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 5. The complainant alleged that there had been delays and long gaps in the investigator s communication with her. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was made to the Ombudsman on 30 November 2016. The complaint was complicated and the complainant was also acting on behalf of other people. It was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. The investigator sent a draft decision to the complainant on 5 July. The complainant submitted a service complaint alleging that there had been delays and gaps in the investigator s communication with her. 7. This service complaint was reviewed by an Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. She explained the assessment process and the actions that had been taken to identify that the complaint should be investigated before it was assigned to the investigator on 8 February 2017. She set out the chronology of contact from that date and said that she was satisfied that there had been regular and frequent contact throughout the duration of the investigation. She could find no evidence of any delay in progressing the investigation and did not uphold the service complaint. 8. The Investigation Manual sets out the expectations for contact with complainants. Investigators must keep the complainant informed of progress and, unless investigators have explained good reasons to adopt a different date or frequency, this must be at least every 20 working days. 9. Notes I have seen confirm the Assistant Ombudsman s conclusion. I found the Assistant Ombudsman s review and response to the complainant to be Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 012 853 August 2017 reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. Staying informed 10. 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 11. This service complaint was received on 28 July 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 1 August. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 12. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 13. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 14. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 15. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 013 624 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased as she had sent a draft decision to the complainant s council but not to him. 2. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 4. This service complaint was raised in an email to the Ombudsman. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 5. The complainant alleged that the investigator was biased as she had sent a draft decision to the complainant s council but not to him. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed these issues appropriately in her review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. The investigator sent a draft decision to the complainant in April 2017, finding no fault by the complainant s council. After considering the complainant s response the investigator decided that the council had been at fault. She sent a revised draft decision to the council on 19 May but not to the complainant. The investigator issued her final decision on 5 June. 7. The complainant sent an email to the investigator. He complained that the investigator had not sent him the revised draft decision. He alleged that this indicated bias towards the complainant s council. He repeated this using the Ombudsman s service complaint form. 8. This service complaint was reviewed by an Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. She explained that the investigator had felt aware of the complainant s views to her first draft decision. In accordance with normal procedures, however, the investigator should have shared the revised draft decision with the complainant. She found no evidence that the investigator was biased towards the complainant s council. She noted that the revised draft decision went in the complainant s favour. She was satisfied that this was a procedural error. She apologised and decided that the case should be reopened and a revised draft decision sent to the complainant and the council. Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 013 624 August 2017 9. 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 10. 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 11. This service complaint was received on 18 July 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 31 July 2017. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 12. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views. 13. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 14. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 15. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 108 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. The complainant alleged that the investigator was racist, careless and unprofessional as she incorrectly referred to Spain rather than Portugal in a letter. 2. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 4. This service complaint was raised using the Ombudsman s online service complaint form. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 5. An aspect of the complaint against the local authority related to Portugal but the investigator had referred to Spain in a letter she sent to the complainant. She wrote to the complainant apologising for this mistake. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this appropriately in his review of the service complaint and response to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team in February 2017. An aspect of the complaint against the local authority related to Portugal. The investigator sent her draft decision to the complainant who made comments in reply. The investigator wrote to the complainant explaining that she had considered the comments but had not changed her view of the complaint. In this letter she incorrectly referred to Spain rather than Portugal. 7. The complainant replied that she was Portuguese and was clearly upset by the error. 8. The investigator wrote to the complainant apologising for this error. 9. The complainant submitted a service complaint form alleging that the investigator was racist, careless and unprofessional as she incorrectly referred to Spain rather than Portugal. She said that the investigator did not know the basic elements of her complaint and that this was direct discrimination. 10. This service complaint was reviewed by an Assistant Ombudsman who wrote to the complainant. He said that it was clear from reading the file that the investigator had made an error and had apologised. He did not uphold the complaint. Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 108 August 2017 11. The Ombudsman s equality and diversity policy is published on their website. It sets out the relevant law (including direct discrimination), arrangements for accessing the service, expectations of staff and training provided. 12. I have reviewed this complaint taken this policy into account. In the notes and documents I have seen the investigator made several references to Portugal apart from in the letter which is the subject of this service complaint. I have found nothing which would indicate that the complainant was the subject of direct discrimination. 13. 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 14. 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 15. This service complaint was received on 2 June 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on 20 June 2017. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 16. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 17. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 18. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 19. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 224 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case allocated to an investigator in an investigation team in January 2017. The complainant wanted his complaint reassigned as he dislike the investigator and didn t think they would get along. 2. The Assistant Ombudsman dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I therefore make no recommendations. Making a complaint 4. This service complaint was raised in an email and telephone calls to the Ombudsman. There is no indication that the complainant required additional help or adjustments to make his complaint. Scope 5. The complainant wanted his complaint reassigned as he dislike the investigator and didn t think they would get along. The Assistant Ombudsman addressed this appropriately in his review of the service complaint and responses to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. This service complaint relates to a complaint against a council which was assigned to an investigator in an investigation team on in January 2017. She attempted to contact the complainant several times using the mobile number he had supplied but was unsuccessful. She then sent an email to the complainant asking him to telephone her. He replied that he had attempted to contact her but she had been busy. The investigator said that she received no voicemail messages or missed calls from the complainant (it appears he had been using the wrong telephone number) and asked him to telephone her. 7. After discussing the case with him the investigator said she would review the case and make enquiries. The complainant made reference to the investigator being too busy and wanted the complaint allocated to another investigator. The investigator advised him that this was unlikely unless there was a particular reason for doing so but provided the details of an Assistant Ombudsman. The complainant repeated his request in an email. 8. The complainant told the Assistant Ombudsman that he wanted a different investigator as he didn t think they would get along. The Assistant Ombudsman considered there were no grounds for this and declined this request. 9. The complainant repeated his request to the investigator who advised him that the Assistant Ombudsman had already considered this and made a decision. The investigator attempted to discuss the complaint, setting out the actions she would take. The complainant was not happy and said that was why he wanted a different investigator. The investigator explained that another investigator would make the Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 224 August 2017 same enquiries. The complainant repeatedly asked the same question and the investigator ended the call as she was not able to progress the issue. 10. The Assistant Ombudsman also wrote to the complainant explaining his decision and the role of the investigator. 11. 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 12. 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 13. This service complaint was received on 10 February 2017 and the Assistant Ombudsman reviewed the circumstances and contacted the complainant that day. He also wrote to the complainant on 13 February 2017. 14. The Assistant Ombudsman directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including his views. 15. The outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 16. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 17. I therefore make no recommendations. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 337 August 2017 Summary 1. This service complaint relates to a case dealt with by an investigator in an assessment team between January and April this year. The complainant alleged that the investigator had misled her and the public in his draft decision. She had expected to receive a telephone call before the draft decision. He had also not answered her question about the role of the Ombudsman. 2. The Assessment Team Leader dealt appropriately with this service complaint taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. Following my review in February this year the Assessment Manual was amended in July to include guidance that, even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation with the complainant would be helpful. This is relevant to this service complaint. 4. I have recommended that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to make clear the contact complainants can expect from the Ombudsman. Making a complaint 5. This service complaint was raised in an email to the investigator who referred it to an Assessment Team Leader for review. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make her complaint. Scope 6. The complainant said that the investigator had misled her and the public in his draft decision. She had expected to receive a telephone call before the draft decision. He had also not answered her question about the role of the Ombudsman. The Assessment Team Leader addressed these issues appropriately in her review and responses to the complainant. Reasonableness 7. The complainant referred a complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2017. The complaint was forwarded for assessment as to whether the Ombudsman would investigate it. The Assessment Team Coordinator sent a letter to the complainant informing her that the complaint was not one that the Ombudsman could investigate. Following dialogue between the Assessment Team Coordinator and the complainant the complaint was allocated to an investigator on 30 March for further consideration. 8. The investigator came to the same conclusion and sent a draft decision to the complainant on 5 April. The complainant replied that the draft decision was inaccurate. It referred to a letter to the complainant from her council on 15 March which contained information about her rights to appeal to a tribunal and this letter Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 337 August 2017 did not contain that information. She also queried the role of the Ombudsman in respect of her complaint. 9. The investigator replied in an email on 6 March explaining the reason why the complaint would not be investigated and the three stages of the process for dealing with complaints. He sent a further email on 11 April with a copy of a letter to the complainant from her council in late 2016 which set out her rights to appeal to a tribunal. 10. The complainant replied on 8 April. She said that he had not addressed the inaccuracy in his draft decision. The investigator replied that the relevant information was in the letter he had sent to her on 11 April. He issued his final decision, amended to reflect the complainant s comments, the same day. He does not appear to have informed the complainant he would do this. 11. The complainant sent an email on 18 April. She said that the investigator had misled her and the general public by the inaccuracy in his draft decision. The investigator referred this service complaint to his Assessment Team Leader. The complainant also sent an email to the Assessment Team Co-ordinator in which she said that the investigator should have admitted his mistake. 12. The Assessment Team Leader reviewed the service complaint and replied to the complainant. She said that one of the reasons for sending a draft decision to a complainant is to make sure it is accurate. The investigator had amended his decision as a result. He had also sent the complainant a copy of the council s letter which contained information about the tribunal. She accepted that the investigator could have made it explicit in his decision that he was referring to two separate documents. She did not agree that it was misleading and said that it would not have affected the decision as the Ombudsman does not adjudicate where there is a clear appeal to a tribunal. She did not uphold the service complaint. 13. The complainant responded that she had been told that she would be contacted once her complaint had been allocated. This had not happened and she had received a draft decision instead. In his reply to her comments the investigator made no reference to his error and did not respond to her request for clarification of the Ombudsman s role. She asked for details of the Ombudsman s procedures for dealing with complaints against councils. 14. The Assessment Team Leader replied, explaining the relevant legislation, the Assessment Code and information and forms provided by the Ombudsman. She said that she considered a draft decision to be contact as outlined by the Assessment Team Coordinator. 15. I have carefully considered all of the relevant documents and notes regarding this service complaint and guidance contained in the Assessment Manual. This sets out expectations for contact with complainants. Initial telephone calls can be a helpful way of introducing the investigator and talking people through the assessment process, as well as giving them an opportunity to ask any questions or reframe their complaint. Direct engagement with complainants tests Page 2
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 337 August 2017 investigators understanding of complaints, enables them to form balanced views and demonstrates farness so, although not compulsory, it is seen as essential in most cases. This is not necessary if the complaint already contains sufficient information to enable a sound decision to be made. A record should nevertheless be made of telephone calls or reasons for not making an initial call. 16. The manual also gives guidance about draft decisions. These are seen as particularly important in situations where decisions have been made on limited evidence or where it has not been possible to speak to the complainant to test their understanding of a complaint. They allows complainants an opportunity to comment on a complex and difficult matter or submit additional information and may represent the complainant s only opportunity to challenge a decision it is foreseeable they may find hard to accept. 17. Communication between the Ombudsman s staff and complainants has been a regular feature in previous reviews. This is also relevant to this service complaint and another service complaint in this review. 18. In February 2015 I recommended that the Ombudsman reviewed guidance to investigators with regards to initial contact with complainants. In particular, I recommended that it was made clear that there should be reasonable attempts to speak with complainants and that this was particularly important where it is proposed to proceed to draft decisions. The Ombudsman included this in Talking Points, the staff newsletter. 19. I also reviewed a service complaint in February this year where a draft decision had been issued without any communication with the complainant. The Ombudsman accepted my recommendation that, even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation with the complainant would be helpful. If it is decided that it is not necessary the rationale should be recorded on the ECHO database. The Assessment Manual has recently been updated to reflect this. 20. I have considered the complainant s expectation that she would receive a telephone call; this is featured in another service complaint in this review. The standard acknowledgement letter only explains that the complainant will be contacted. The letter also mentions that complainants have an opportunity to comment on draft decisions. 21. In the case of this service complaint I am drawn to the conclusion that direct contact i.e. a conversation, with the complainant may have prevented the service complaint in the first instance and made the subsequent communication unnecessary. It is apparent that the complainant was unsure of the Ombudsman s remit in relation to complaints about councils and the stages of the Ombudsman s process for dealing with them. Much of the correspondence following the issue of the draft decision relates to the boundaries of the Ombudsman s jurisdiction and a minor mistake in the draft decision. It could have been helpful if the investigator had spoken with the complainant to make it clear that the draft decision was not a Page 3
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 337 August 2017 public document and that he would amend the final decision to take account of the complainant s comments. 22. It may be help to manage complainants expectations if it is made explicit that they may not necessarily receive a telephone call and that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. 23. 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. 24. The Assessment Manual has already been updated in relating to initial contact with complainants following my recommendation in February this year. 25. I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Staying informed 26. Letters to the complainant are timely, 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 27. The service complaint was received on 18 April 2017 and the Assessment Team Leader reviewed the circumstances and wrote to the complainant on the 27 April 2017. This is within the published timescale of 20 working days. 28. The Assessment Team Leader directly addressed the complaint, taking into account the information supplied by the complainant including her views. 29. I consider that the outcome reflects the specific nature of this service complaint. Conclusion and recommendations 30. I consider that this service complaint was dealt with appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 31. I note that, following my recommendation in February this year, the Assessment Manual was updated in July to include guidance that, even if there is sufficient information to proceed to a draft decision, the investigator should also consider whether a telephone conversation with the complainant would be helpful. Page 4
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 014 337 August 2017 Recommendation I recommend that the acknowledgement letter sent to complainants is amended to: Make it explicit that complainants may not necessarily receive a telephone call. Make it explicit that a draft decision may be the first response that complainants receive from the Ombudsman and the reason for this. Graham Manfield External Reviewer Page 5
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 018 228 August 2017 Summary 1. These service complaints relates to a decision by an Intake Team Leader in March 2017 which the complainant alleged delayed progress and to a conversation between the complainant and the Intake Team Leader. He alleged that the Intake Team Leader had been unhelpful, rude and aggressive. 2. The Customer Service Manager dealt appropriately with these service complaints taking into account all of the circumstances and the Ombudsman s standard working practices. 3. I have recommended that the Intake Team Leader is reminded about the Ombudsman s guidance when a complainant says they are recording a telephone conversation. Making a complaint 4. The initial service complaint was raised in a telephone call to an intake team. The second service complaint was forwarded to the Ombudsman by the complainant s MP. There is no indication that the complainant required any additional help or adjustments to make his complaints. Scope 5. The complainant alleged that progress on his complaint had been delayed by the Intake Team Leader s decision and that the Intake Team Leader had been discourteous during a telephone conversation. The Customer Service Manager addressed this appropriately in his review of these service complaints and responses to the complainant. Reasonableness 6. These service complaints relate to a decision by an Intake Team Leader which the complainant alleged had delayed progress and to a conversation between the complainant and the Intake Team Leader. 7. The complainant telephoned an adviser and alleged that the Intake Team Leader had delayed progress by incorrectly referring him to his council. He had appealed this decision and the complaint had subsequently been passed for assessment as to whether it should be investigated by the Ombudsman but he had not been contacted. This service complaint was referred to the Customer Service Manager. 8. The Customer Service Manager wrote to the complainant on 15 March. He explained that the Intake Team Leader had reached his decision based on the evidence provided at that time. Whilst the complaint had subsequently been forward for assessment this did not necessarily suggest that the Intake Team Leader s decision was incorrect. There had been only a day s delay and he considered the impact to be minimal. 9. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with this response. The Customer Service Manager then telephoned him to explain the process and noted that the complainant was content to await contact from an assessment team. Page 1
LGO Service Complaint Review 16 018 228 August 2017 10. The complainant contacted the adviser again. He wanted the Ombudsman to deal with his complaint as a matter of urgency. The adviser explained that, although the complaint had been forwarded for assessment, an investigator had yet to be allocated. The complainant repeatedly insisted that he be transferred to the Customer Services Manager even though the adviser explained that he was not available and wasn t responsible for this stage of the process. The advisor was also unable to ascertain which Assessment Team Leader was responsible for overseeing the assessment until it had been allocated. The adviser referred this service complaint to his manager, the Intake Team Leader. 11. The Intake Team Leader spoke with the complainant and reiterated the advice given by the adviser. The conversation was clearly difficult and the complainant became agitated and insulted the Intake Team Leader. He also said that he was recording the conversation and would pass it to his MP. The Intake Team Leader replied that he had not given his permission for the call to be recorded. He asked the complainant to calm down and treat him civilly. Eventually the Intake Team Leader terminated the telephone call. 12. The complainant contacted his MP who forwarded his email to the Ombudsman. He alleged that the Intake Team Leader had been unhelpful, rude and aggressive. 13. The Customer Service Manager reviewed this service complaint and wrote to the complainant. He explained that he had listened to recordings of both conversations and considered that the complainant had been rude to the Intake Team Leader. He considered that the complainant s email to his MP reflected this. He thought the Intake Team Leader was correct to ask the complainant to calm down and address him civilly. He said that the complainant should have had the courtesy to inform the Intake Team Leader that he was recording their conversation and that he had used this to threaten the Intake Team Leader. He did not uphold this service complaint and said that the Intake Team Leader was correct in asking the complainant to be civil. He said that he found the complainant s manner to be threatening and unreasonable and reminded the complainant of the Ombudsman s policy in this respect. 14. The recordings of telephone conversations and notes I have seen confirm the Customer Service Manager s assessment of this service complaint. Similar behaviour is also noted in relation to the complainant s earlier conversation with the adviser. 15. 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. 16. Recording of conversations by complainants has featured in previous reviews including a service complaint I reviewed in February this year. It is therefore worth reiterating that the Ombudsman s guidance to staff explains that there is nothing in law to prevent complainants recording telephone calls and that there should be no reason why a call should be ended just because a complainant says that they Page 2