Annual Report of the Independent Complaints Reviewer for the Audit Commission
2007-2008

ABOUT THE INDEPENDANT COMPLAINTS REVIEWER

Jodi Berg is the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) for the Audit Commission. The ICR is not part of the Audit Commission's management structure and her service is free for people and organisations who are dissatisfied with the Audit Commission's own response to their complaints.

Mrs Berg is a solicitor, a mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. She has held Board positions in the private, public and not for profit sectors. She established the ICR office in 1998. The office currently reviews complaints about 7 public bodies.

The ICR mission

Seeking a fair resolution

The ICR purpose

To provide a free, effective and impartial complaints review and resolution service for complainants that settles complaints in a proportionate manner and makes a positive difference for the Audit Commission.

People can expect from the ICR Team:

CONTENTS

Back to Top

FOREWORD

I am pleased to present my first Annual Report as the Independent Complaints Reviewer for the Audit Commission. This is also the first published independent report on the operation of the Audit Commission's internal and independent complaints procedures. My appointment followed a review of the Audit Commission's previous arrangements for handling complaints. This led to the decision to introduce a wholly independent final stage of complaint review, provided by a professional complaint handling service.

This was a significant step forwards towards meeting the high expectations that people rightly have of all public bodies and, in particular, one that is a regulator. By opting for a greater degree of openness and transparency than earlier arrangements, the Audit Commission confirmed the importance it places on securing public confidence in the way it goes about its important work and demonstrated its willingness to be accountable through the mechanism of independent complaint review.

Perhaps more than any other public body or regulator, the Audit Commission operates in a 'glass house' environment in which people expect its own standards and processes to be second to none. It has a high reputation for the quality of its audit and inspection functions and for its 'value added' activities. It also enjoys a significant public profile, particularly in respect of its work with local authorities. However, my experience to date is that people expect rather more of the Audit Commission than its role allows, in particular when it comes to the investigation of personal concerns about the use of public money. This expectation gap can result in complaints, if people do not feel that the Commission has taken the interest in their concerns that they believe is warranted, or if they have not achieved the outcome they were hoping for initially.

In these and in other situations, people can now turn to me if they want an unbiased but informed view of problems they have encountered. My role is to consider individual complaints and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to the Audit Commission aimed at securing redress for the person concerned, or at improving the quality of the service provided to others in the future. My aim is to bring complaints to settled closure. Independent review may not always result in the outcome complainants are hoping for, but it always increases their understanding about the service they could have expected from the Audit Commission, and whether it met required standards in their case. The Audit Commission is committed to acting upon my recommendations unless there are exceptional circumstances that prevent it from doing so. I am pleased to report a positive response to recommendations made to date.

During the course of this year, I have had regular meetings with the Head of the Chief Executive's Office who has been responsible for setting up the new procedures within the Audit Commission. I am grateful to her for the helpful way she has worked with my office to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. In addition, I have had the opportunity to meet with the Chair, the Chief Executive and with Heads of Operations. I have been heartened by their clear commitment to supporting the principles of independent complaint review, and to taking best value from the process by learning from the experience and outcomes of complaints referred to me.

I have also embarked on a series of visits to offices across the country, which has helped me to learn about the Commission from the 'inside', so that I can offer a more informed response to complainants and to the Commission. I have had a chance to discuss the approach to complaints with partners of one of the professional firms of auditors that acts as a sub-contractor for the Audit Commission. There has been a lot to learn. The Audit Commission is one of the most complex pubic bodies I have worked with and it is no surprise to me that most people find it impossible to describe what the Commission is or what it does. Nevertheless, it's work can and does have a real impact on all of our lives.

My experience of meeting with the Commission's staff has been very positive and I thank everyone who has spent time with me to improve my understanding. I have found a clear commitment to customer service and a willingness to engage personally with the issues raised by complaints. However, there is still some way to go before a learning organisation approach to complaints is achieved. I am confident that the new internal and independent procedures will help to drive this forward.

The introduction of independent complaint review has run alongside other far-reaching changes for the Audit Commission, such as the impending introduction of Comprehensive Area Assessment. This will bring new challenges for Commission staff. It is important during this time of change that customer service remains at the forefront of the Commission's strategy and I hope to play my part in this effort.

My report sets out the steps taken to set up the ICR service for the Audit Commission, and describes progress to date. I hope that you find it interesting and would welcome any comments.

Jodi Berg
Independent Complaints Reviewer

Back to Top

THE ICR OFFICE

Who we are

The ICR is supported in her work by a team of staff seconded to the ICR office from other public bodies, including those for which Jodi Berg is the ICR. These roles are regarded as development opportunities and are held by staff for a limited time period. The intention is that when they return to work in their 'home' organisations or elsewhere, they will take with them skills and understanding gained in the course of their work at the ICR office. Additionally, team members are able to offer expertise to the review process, which informs our understanding of complaints we receive.

What is the ICR service?

The ICR service was established in 1998 when Jodi Berg was appointed to investigate complaints about HM Land Registry. Over the following years, the service expanded to handle complaints about the Charity Commission, the Housing Corporation, Land Registers Northern Ireland, The National Archives and the Youth Justice Agency. In 2007 Jodi Berg was appointed ICR for the Audit Commission. Our role is to look into complaints about all of these public bodies. The service is managerially independent of them all and is free to complainants.

Since inception the ICR's office has earned a reputation for fairness and impartiality of decision-making, and for meeting challenging speed of service targets. We welcome independent scrutiny of the quality of our service and were one of the first public offices in the UK to be awarded the BSI complaints management standard.

We ensure that complainants understand the purpose and limitations of our role and how we go about our work by providing clear public information, and we call the complainant's attention to this when personal contact is made. We communicate with people in a clear and courteous manner that meets their needs and preferences.

The ICR role

The ICR looks into complaints about the Audit Commission made by members of the public or organisations affected by its actions or decisions, who are dissatisfied with the response to their complaints. She aims to achieve a just and proportionate settlement of complaints, either by conciliation or adjudication, which brings an end to the consideration of the complaint. In doing so, she looks for opportunities to make a positive difference for the Audit Commission in the future.

The ICR has authority to consider the way in which the Commission has responded to complaints about maladministration. Put simply, maladministration is a failure in standards of service or unfair treatment. This may include:

There are complaints that the ICR cannot investigate. These include:

Dealing with complaints

Step 1

When we are contacted by someone wishing to refer a complaint or raise a concern, we consider whether we can provide immediate information or advice which will resolve matters. We never turn people away without trying to help by pointing them in the right direction, even if we cannot assist directly either because their complaint falls outside of the ICR's remit or has not yet been referred to the Audit Commission itself.

Step 2

Once a complaint is accepted, we discuss the possibility of achieving an agreed settlement with the complainant. Success in this effort often depends on the realism of people's expectations and we try to manage discussions in ways which inform awareness of the range of possible outcomes that can be achieved. If the terms of a possible agreement appear to fall within this range, we approach the Audit Commission to consider whether it is prepared to take the required settlement action. This may involve agreeing to take certain steps, to provide information, or to offer an apology and explanation if things have gone wrong.

Step 3

In cases where resolution is not possible or appropriate, we agree a summary of complaint issues with the complainant, which sets the framework for our investigation. Once agreed, a copy of the summary is sent to the Commission, with a request for all of the relevant files.

Step 4

We scrutinise all of the information provided and the ICR considers the actions taken by the Audit Commission against its own published standards and procedures, and against recognised standards of administrative competence for public bodies.

Step 5

The ICR's report outlines the background to the complaint and her conclusions. Draft reports may be offered for comment on the understanding that they remain subject to change should new information come to light. The final report is issued to both the complainant and the Audit Commission, and is treated as confidential by the ICR.

Step 6

Where recommendations are made, the ICR monitors their implementation. If systemic in nature, the Audit Commission has agreed to update the ICR on progress and outcomes.

ICR service principles

The ICR has associate corporate membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA). She adheres to BIOA values of independence of judgment, fairness and impartiality, effectiveness and accountability. These are reflected in BIOA's recently published Guide to the Principles of Good Complaint Handling to which the ICR office is fully committed. These principles underpin our process and support the achievement of our mission and purpose. They are:

Clarity of purpose

A clear statement of the ICR's role, intent and scope.

Accessibility

A service that is free, open and available to all who need it.

Flexibility

Procedures, which are responsive to the needs of individuals.

Openness and transparency

Public information, which demystifies the service.

Proportionality

Process and resolution that is appropriate to the complaint.

Efficiency

A service that strives to meet challenging standards of good administration.

Quality outcomes

Complaint resolution leading to positive change.

BIOA members share information about improvements to their own services and look for opportunities to learn from the experience and expertise of colleagues in other ombudsman and independent complaint handling bodies. In this way, we aim to provide a first rate service for complainants, as well as worthwhile outcomes for them and for organisations complained about.

Finding out about other complaint handling organisations

You can find out about other complaint handling organisations by visiting the British and Irish Ombudsman Association website: www.bioa.org.uk. The ICR's own website also has links to websites of other complaints handling and ombudsman services.

Confidentiality

The subject matter of many complaints touches upon personal and sensitive issues. We want people to feel confident about being frank and open with us whether making or responding to a complaint referral. We always explain how we will deal with information to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. As far as possible, we respect a complainant's wishes and protect personal information that is sensitive in nature relating to their financial situation, their health or other personal facts that are not directly related to their complaint.

Our leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution states that we will share with the Audit Commission the name of the complainant when we receive their referral. In order to deal with a complaint effectively, we often need to handle personal details about a complainant, which may include sensitive information. We try to do so considerately, but we do need to exchange information about the complaint with the Audit Commission in order to find out important facts about it.

We are able to see all of the relevant information, including the Audit Commission's files and other data. Although we have the right of access to this information for the purposes of our investigation, we have no authority to release it to a complainant or any other third party. Any requests for data or information must be made direct to the Commission. If such a request is made and we are examining relevant material, we return it immediately to allow the Commission to deal with the request. The evidence is then returned to us as soon as possible so that our review can proceed. People who wish to challenge the Audit Commission's refusal of a request for information can refer the matter to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

We always respect the privacy of the complainant and do not publish information about them or their case. We do not discuss individual cases with the media or any other third party, although we may refer to the kind of issues it brings to light, in order to encourage better understanding of the causes of complaints and how they can be avoided.

Back to Top

---

COMPLAINT STATISTICS AND OTHER FACTS

The Audit Commission's new internal complaints procedure is a two-stage process. This was set up in November 2006 to be fit for purpose in readiness for the introduction of the third and final review stage, which is referral to the ICR. When a complaint is first received, it is handled within the relevant Directorate, or, where appropriate, by a professional firm acting as sub-contractor for the Audit Commission. If the complainant is not satisfied with the initial response, the complaint may be referred to the Commission's Complaints Unit Manager, who will then determine how best to respond to it, avoiding review by anyone who has already been involved in the matter. This usually includes investigation by a senior manager.

At the end of review, the complainant is sent a final response which addresses all of the complaint issues. This letter refers people to the ICR office if they remain dissatisfied with the answer they have received, or with the way in which their complaint has been handled.

Complaints handled by the Audit Commission

In the reporting period January 2007 to March 2008 (extended to year end for this report), the Audit Commission reported an increase in the number of complaint cases received, albeit that the overall number of recorded complaints received remained low.

The Commission recorded that it received 61 new complaints in the reporting period (which contained 102 individual complaint elements) and 2 were carried forward from the old complaints process. The figures below show the number investigated by the Commission, and the number which are ongoing. The remainder moved on to stage 3 of the complaints process for consideration by the ICR.

	Stage 1	Stage 2
Investigated	50	4
Ongoing Complaints	4	2

The Audit Commission receives and records very few complaints in relation to the extensive contact it has with bodies within remit and members of the public. The effectiveness of the new internal complaint process is demonstrated by a welcome reduction this year in the number of cases escalated through the review stages. In past years approximately 80% of complaints that were addressed within the complaint process, went on to the second stage of review. Today that trend has been completely reversed and the great majority of complaints are settled at stage 1. This is due to the Commission placing greater emphasis on conciliation and a thorough approach to the consideration of complaints.

Of the 102 individual complaint elements, the following categories were recorded:

Category	Number of complaints
Behaviour of staff	17
Communications	19
Timeliness	13
Quality of response	24
Failure to comply with Commission standards	19
Complaint handling	3
Outside remit (scored judgements and auditor judgement)	5
Discrimination	2

The nature of recorded complaints demonstrates that many concerns relate to communication issues, including the way people perceive that they have been treated or their view of the answers they have been given when raising concerns. The Audit Commission can test effective and consistent practice and communication, by reference to complaints which reflect dissatisfaction with contact with Commission staff.

Of the cases considered under the Commission's complaints process so far this year, the following outcomes were recorded.

Category	Upheld	Not Upheld
Behaviour of staff	2	7
Communications	6	11
Timeliness	7	3
Quality of response	2	11
Failure to comply with Commission standards	3	9
Complaint handling		2
Discrimination		1
Outside remit		17
Withdrawn		4

Although the numbers of complaints upheld are few, an analysis of all investigated complaints can help to identify areas of discontent, to inform management decisions. The centralised approach to the second stage of review can be developed to further encourage this approach.

ICR casework

Complaint referrals and reviews

The ICR conducted only 3 reviews this year, and currently has a further 2 in progress. The low number of referrals demonstrates the Commission's ability to settle complaints within its internal process, so that people do not feel it necessary to take the extra step of independent review.

Reviews and outcomes

Allegations	Fully upheld	Partially upheld	Not upheld	No conclusion	Outside remit	Justified	Settled
7	-	2	1	1	-	-	3

Very few complaints were received in the reporting period, however those that were seen did reflect the areas of practice most commonly raised in the complaints made to the Audit Commission. They have been difficult to deal with because of the determined approach of some complainants who are unwilling to bring things to a close. However, this is part and parcel of the purpose of the review process. ICR review concludes matters for this office and for the Audit Commission, which will not revisit the same issues if invited to do so by a complainant.

Whilst referrals remain few and far between at present, it will not be surprising if numbers increase once procedures become better known.

ICR case studies

Case 1

Mr A complained that a Housing Inspector failed to deliver on a promise to send him a copy of an inspection report on time, and the report issue was then subject to further delay. He also complained about the impartiality of a housing inspector, who he alleged had a personal relationship with a council employee. He wanted the Inspector to be removed from the inspection.

The ICR found that Mr A was not informed about the likely changes to the expected publication date for the report. She noted that the Commission's initial complaint response suggested that Mr A had been advised to expect the report in early April 2006, and would be kept up to date with progress in the interim. The ICR found no objective evidence to suggest that this happened. She found the complaint was justified, although she noted that an apology and explanation had been offered before it was referred to the ICR. This was appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances and the ICR made no further recommendation for personal redress.

In relation to the allegation about the Inspector, the ICR found nothing from her review of the Commission's files or the information provided by the complainant to suggest anything untoward in the relationship between the Inspector and the council employee. However she identified that a clearer explanation might have helped Mr A to understand that Commission staff are expected to forge constructive and friendly working relationships with people in organisations within remit, within the limits of professional conduct. The ICR also noted that this may have helped the Commission to explain why further strong evidence of an inappropriate relationship is required, before disciplinary action should be considered.

Case 2

Mr B complained that the Audit Commission had misunderstood his complaint, by assuming that it was about the exercise of an auditor's powers. For this reason, the Commission had refused to consider his complaint within the complaint process. The ICR found that Mr B was complaining about a different matter and, after clarifying this to the Commission, the Commission agreed with the ICR that it would provide a response in line with its complaints process. This agreement resolved the complaint at that stage.

Case 3

Organisation C had raised a complaint which was considered by the Independent Complaints Panel (which preceded the ICR). A number of elements of the complaint were upheld, and the Commission had yet to offer redress. Whilst the ICR was unable to comment on the substance of the complaint (as it had been considered by the panel), she did consider the issue of redress. The ICR noted that the panel's report had upheld a number of complaints and asked the Commission what action was taken after receiving the panel's report. She noted that consideration of the report had led to amendment in procedure, in order to improve communication and assist organisations to take concerns forward through the appropriate channels. In addition, staff were reminded of the need to respond to complaints in a timely way. Although no direct redress such as an apology had been given in this instance, the ICR was satisfied that the Commission had demonstrated that it was open to learning from mistakes. The panel's report had been taken seriously and had led to improvement in the Commission's service.

Back to Top

---

ICR OVERVIEW OF THE YEAR

This overview reflects upon the complaints about the Audit Commission that have been referred to me during the year and the information gathered from all of my visits and conversations. The visits I have undertaken since my appointment have covered different regions and areas of the business. My purpose has been to develop my own understanding of the Audit Commission's role, and to raise awareness amongst the Commission's staff about the ICR process and the way in which complaints can be used to spread good practice.

It is difficult at this stage to ascribe trends to our initial very small caseload of complaints. However, some lessons can be learned. In one case, I was able to recommend redress for an individual complainant, alongside making a systemic recommendation to encourage consideration of ways that it might have been deflected. I am pleased to report that the Commission accepted my recommendations and, indeed, looked to take matters even further than suggested in an effort to improve practice and understanding. It is particularly pleasing to feel that the work my staff and I do can make a positive difference.

The purpose and value of complaints

Complaints are an opportunity to learn from an external perspective what causes dissatisfaction and how this might be avoided. In this way, they can add value for an organisation, by influencing the way in which it conducts its business. I am keen to promote a positive and welcoming approach to complaints at all levels within the Audit Commission.

I am greatly encouraged by the reaction to my visits. Enthusiasm has been expressed for the new complaint processes and for the transparency of independent review. The low number of formal complaints recorded by the Audit Commission is remarkable, when set against the many thousands of client contacts during the year. Whilst this paints a very positive picture of the Audit Commission, it is not the whole picture. Recorded complaints are those that have been taken further by complainants determined to obtain a response at senior level, but they do not fully reflect the extent of concerns raised with the Commission in the course of the 15-month reporting period. Audit Commission staff explained how most concerns are resolved immediately by members of staff, who make every effort to sort problems out on the spot or take things forward with their managers.

From time to time, further action is required to settle matters and I have been told about some very positive actions taken to bring things to a satisfactory close. This has included meetings at senior level and extensive correspondence, as well as other steps. This has been good news for the particular complainant and for the Commission, but it is not news that has reached any other part of the organisation, because these complaints have not been recorded formally, either within the current complaints system or as a resolved issue. As a result, Commission managers and colleagues can take no further benefit from the interaction with the complainant and those who have been successful in settling problems. Also, those staff members who have put considerable effort into sorting problems out receive no recognition for their efforts in preventing the escalation of the complaint.

To achieve this, there needs to be a cultural shift from seeing the receipt of complaints essentially as a 'failing' or problem, to being an opportunity for staff to add to the Commission's knowledge base and to play an important part in identifying ways in which service can be improved. This is a concept which Audit Commission staff would welcome, as it accords with the way that they encourage this approach within other organisations.

In addition, it is important not to dwell only on negative customer feedback, but to acknowledge that the Commission receives many positive comments about its work from organisations in remit and from the public. Whilst I have been told about this anecdotally, I understand that no attempt is currently made to capture some of this information so that all Commission staff can benefit from knowing that their organisational efforts are appreciated.

I am confident that should the Audit Commission introduce ways of capturing relevant information and acknowledging staff success, it will create a more open response to feedback including complaints, which supports the Board's approach to these issues.

Robust complaint procedures

I welcome the introduction of the Audit Commission's new and structured approach to complaint handling. I am aware that, in the past, there has been some reluctance to move people forward into complaints procedures and, on occasion, this has resulted in contact with a complainant which continues for months and sometimes years. In my visits to Commission offices, I have explained to staff my own views about this kind of inappropriate engagement with a complainant, which offers people false hope of a different response to their concerns 'down the line'. Moreover it is a disproportionate use of organisational resource.

I am hopeful that the new approach to complaints will encourage the Commission's staff to feel confidence in the new procedures, if and when their own attempts to resolve matters have proved unsuccessful. This should mean that, where appropriate, complainants are advised to take matters forward and given information about how this can be done. It is important to strike a balance between being responsive to people's needs, and allowing complainants to set the pace and length of engagement, resulting in matters running on for much longer than is reasonable or appropriate. In my own review of complaints, I take an ongoing interest in the timely recognition of complaints and the appropriate referral to internal procedures.

Public understanding

My office regularly receives complaint referrals which are based on a misunderstanding or misplaced expectation about the role and powers of a public body. This is particularly true of Regulators. People often have a very clear opinion about the rigorous regulatory action that should be taken in response to their concerns, when this may not be a likely response because of considerations of proportionality, or may not be possible at all because of legislative constraints. This lack of understanding has to be addressed through clarity in public information.

It is the case that the Audit Commission has recently changed its approach in a number of practice areas, but from what I have seen, public information and guidance has not always kept pace. In addition, it is not always clear how the Principles of Good Regulation - proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting - impact on changing practice and customer contact. In relation to my own role, I hope that over the course of the next year, the Commission will review its publications to enhance people's understanding of the Commission's role and the way it will act in relation to concerns. In turn, this will help me to provide consistent messages in my responses to complaints.

Looking forward

I have taken on the role of ICR at a particularly interesting time of change for the Audit Commission. The impending introduction of Comprehensive Area Assessment, signals a change in approach from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, which looked at past performance, and will give a forward view of how inspected organisations interact for the benefit of the local community. Rather than focusing on key areas, this approach will be broad and may not provide the in-depth analysis organisations are used to. Looking forward rather than back is a more complex and risky business, where success is judged on the accuracy of forecasts, with the benefit of hindsight.

Alongside these changes, in recent times a more stringent auditing regime has been introduced, in line with the direction of travel in the accounting profession as a whole. Together these changes are wide reaching and the Audit Commission may well face new issues and complaints from unexpected quarters. It is therefore, very welcome that the new internal complaint procedure appears to have bedded in well and is fit for purpose to meet the challenges ahead. That achievement is a compliment to the hard work and efficiency of complaint handling staff.

Back to Top

---

ABOUT THE AUDIT COMMISSION

The Audit Commission is an independent public corporation responsible for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public money. The Commission's work covers 11,000 bodies in England, which between them spend more than £180 billion of public money each year. Its remit includes local government, health, housing, community safety, police authorities and fire and rescue services. Created in 1983, the Commission employs around 2,000 staff working in more than 250 locations throughout England. The Audit Commission website www.audit-commission.gov.uk gives more detailed information on what the Commission does, and how.

Back to Top

---

CONTACT THE ICR TEAM

New Premier House
150 Southampton Row
London WC1B 5AL
E-mail: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7278 6251
Fax: 020 7278 9675

Independent Complaints Reviewer
New Premier House
150 Southampton Row
London
WC1B 5AL
E-mail: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7278 6251
Fax: 020 7278 9675