Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity Commission - Report November 2001 - Page 1

Introduction

In January 2000, the Independent Complaints Review service for the Charity Commission was established to look into complaints about the Charity Commission made by users of the service, including members of the public and charities. A six-month pilot project for the new scheme was originally intended but this period was subsequently extended to two years. The service offered by the Independent Complaints Reviewer's office is free to Commission customers.

In order to develop the role, the Charity Commission engaged the services of an experienced complaint reviewer. Jodi Berg was appointed as the Charity Commission's first Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) in January 2000. Her role is to act as an honest broker in investigating complaints about the Charity Commission. Mrs Berg is the ICR for the Land Registry, the National Archives, and the Housing Corporation and Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency. A solicitor with extensive management experience in the private and public sectors, she is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

It is the aim of the ICR to ensure fairness and impartiality in the consideration of complaints about the Charity Commission. She will investigate complaints which have already been considered by the Charity Commission, where the complainant feels matters have been left unresolved or have been dealt with unsatisfactorily.

This report marks the end of the pilot and includes information about the ICR service, a digest of cases considered and outlines the key themes which have emerged during the pilot project.

---

CONTENTS

---

FOREWORD

I am pleased to present my second report as Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) to the Charity Commission. This report marks the end of a two-year pilot.

The Charity Commission has now to decide whether to make the independent complaint review process a permanent part of its response to customer concerns. I believe that over the past two years the service has demonstrated its value to Commission customers and to the Commission itself. It has enhanced public confidence in the Commission and has served to make the Commission more openly accountable to its customers. It is my strong recommendation that the service is carried forward and I am pleased to learn that this is the Commission's clear intention.

The aims of my office have remained constant throughout the pilot. These are to establish and develop the ICR service; to act as a referee for the relatively small number of dissatisfied Commission customers and to capture the lessons that are to be learned from their complaints. As a result, my recommendations are aimed both at putting matters right for individual customers and at improving the future quality of Commission services to others. I am pleased to report that, to date, the Commission has accepted all of the recommendations that I have made.

All of the complaints I review have already been investigated within the Commission's own internal procedure. Overall, I have been impressed by the Commission's determination to resolve complaints as quickly as possible and to give people a full and open response. As a result, it is not surprising that I do not uphold most of the complaints referred to my office. Nevertheless, there have been a number of justified complaints, which have raised serious issues of concern. This is disappointing for everyone involved, not least for the Commission as it continues its efforts to improve the quality of its service to customers.

The independent complaints review service is a tangible demonstration of the integrity and accountability of the Charity Commission's internal procedures, whereby the Commission can demonstrate its resolve to use the information provided by complaints and the ICR process for positive change. This accountability includes the responsibility to establish clear and transparent procedures and ensure adherence to them. It also implies an organic growth of new guidelines and processes, in response to the changing needs of customers.

There is a general and unfortunate perception that the 'business' of government is not always accountable. Many people do not understand the way in which public services are managed or the way in which they carry out their important public responsibilities. There can also be a mismatch between the expectations that people have of an organisation and the reality of what it can provide. This is particularly true of the Charity Commission. Many of the complaints that the Commission receives and a number of those that I have reviewed can be placed in this category.

The Charity Commission is a regulatory body with wide and far-reaching powers; but it cannot necessarily use these powers on every occasion when it is asked to do so, nor would it be right if it did. A regulator must be free to exercise an appropriate degree of discretion in deciding when to exercise regulatory powers. If not, regulation may become restriction. Although the Commission may be able to offer help or advice, it is not necessarily able to resolve complaints about charities or to provide redress for the individuals who make them. In general, the Commission cannot interfere in the administration of a charity and can only invoke its regulatory powers in specific circumstances, where there are clear and persuasive grounds for doing so.

Nevertheless, people with concerns about individual charities turn to the Commission for help. They have nowhere else to go. And, on occasion, the outcome of this contact can be disappointing for them. Over the course of the pilot, I have increasingly come to the view that the charitable sector, which continues to grow in size and importance, requires an Ombudsman to whom people can turn with complaints about charities. The roles of regulator and Ombudsman have been separated to good effect in other areas, for example in social housing, and Ombudsman schemes have proved their worth both in the public sector and in important areas of private enterprise. I have no doubt that the public interest could be well served by such a development.

Over the last two years, I have met with a variety of 'stakeholders' to try to learn more about the Commission from the perspective of its 'customers' and those acting on their behalf. On the whole, the Commission is held in high regard, but there have been those who have voiced serious concerns about issues such as transparency of process and consistency of decision-making. The Charity Commission has taken these concerns to heart and is undergoing a period of review and change, of which this pilot has been a part. In my view, this augurs well for the future.

In addition, I have visited Charity Commission offices in London, Taunton and Liverpool to explain my role and to raise awareness about the value of complaints as learning opportunities. It is apparent from my visits that Commission staff are keen to provide a first rate service and I continue to be heartened by the very open way in which the independent complaints review process has been welcomed. As one Commission officer has said "It is of vital importance that the customer knows that the manner of operation of a service provider can be questioned in a transparent and non-partisan manner. How else can we....improve our service dispassionately unless we realise what we are doing well or not so well? The ICR provides such feedback in a constructive and positive fashion."

My regular meetings with the Chief Charity Commissioner, with other members of the senior management team and with the Board have been key to the success of the pilot. It is in the nature of this service that, from time to time, the Commission will find my reports disappointing. This can raise sensitive issues. Nevertheless, there has not been a time when the commitment to the principles of independent review wavered or the determination to work in an open and co-operative manner with my office flagged. As a result, in my view, we have been able to develop a robust and highly regarded independent review service, which adheres to the highest public sector standards.

My role as ICR for the Charity Commission has been both challenging and stimulating. I have learned a great deal about the Commission and its work and it has been a privilege to establish the office. I thank everyone involved in the pilot project for their help and, in particular, I thank my investigation officers, Andrew Robertson and John Calvert, for their outstanding contribution to our work and for coping so well with the growing demands of my office.

---

The independent complaints review service

The Independent Complaints Reviewer's office provides an independent and free service to the public, which underpins the fairness and rigour of the Charity Commission's internal complaints procedure.

This office deals with complaints against a number of public bodies. Funded through these organisations and thereby from the public purse, we are conscious of the responsibility that is placed upon us to carry out our role conscientiously. Both complainants and the Commission rely upon our objectivity and impartiality and we are committed to demonstrating the absolute independence of the complaints review process.

The ICR office is based at separate premises from the Charity Commission. Our office staff are trained in complaints handling and are careful to maintain both confidentiality and the integrity of our processes. Our mission statement clarifies our commitment to the guiding principles of accountability in public life. We offer a service that is:

Accessibility

We actively explore ways in which to promote our service. Key to these efforts is the provision of complete and easily accessible information regarding the services provided to complainants. Information can be obtained from:

We have made considerable efforts to publicise our service to third party organisations, ensuring that leaflets and telephone consultation are always available to consumer bodies and by providing information to other complaints handling bodies through our active membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association.

On the Internet, the ICR is accessible through numerous third party consumer websites. We see this as a meaningful way of demonstrating our independence and providing information to all those who might need our help.

Our leaflets and website are written with the understanding that members of the public can be 'turned off' by jargon, and we try to keep to plain language in all our correspondence and avoid excessively obscure or legal terminology. We supply information in the following ways:

It is our policy that no-one should be discouraged from contacting us, learning about our services or taking advantage of them due to disability or a lack of personal contact. Our telephone answering facility is available within and outside of office hours, and those who choose to contact us by telephone or e-mail will find that they are communicating with a 'real person' rather than a 'machine'. We have found that complainants generally respond more positively, whatever the outcome of their complaint, when they have access to a named individual who has taken the time and effort to understand and engage with their problem and their concerns.

In order to break down the language barriers to communication with some sectors of the community, we can offer information in several languages. We recognise that it is possible for individuals living in Britain to feel disenfranchised due to English not being their first language and our hope is that language difficulties will not prevent any member of the public from accessing our full service. In addition, we can provide information on audiotape.

Our new office

In December last year, we moved to Southampton Row in central London. Our new office is in a central location, easy to find and convenient for public transport. This has increased our accessibility to complainants and encouraged more face to face meetings. This can be beneficial to complainants who believe that they can communicate their concerns more clearly and directly in a personal meeting than they can in writing or over the telephone. Since moving, several complainants have taken advantage of this opportunity by visiting our office and have reported that it is easy to find and welcoming.

An office move can often have a 'knock on' effect on the turnaround of work and ours was no exception. Despite our best endeavours, it took a while to get back to 'business as usual'. However, during this period we made every effort to maintain as full and prompt a service as possible.

This was made easier by the introduction of a new case management IT system, which has allowed us to track the progress of casework more effectively and to access data for analytical and management purposes.

The Information Age

Our website offers full details about our service, an online version of the leaflet we send to complainants and printable versions of the forms we ask complainants to submit to us, including a new Equal Opportunities questionnaire, which remains under development. All of this can facilitate speedy access to our services to 'web aware' complainants. It is also a forum through which the public can be informed whenever there is anything to report regarding the ongoing development of the ICR's office.

In addition to information about the ICR's office, the website places our service in context, by providing hyperlinks to other complaint handling and Ombudsman services, as well as to national consumer organisations.

In maintaining our website we have paid close attention to the guidelines issued by the Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI which promotes the easy use of websites by all members of the public, paying special attention to the specific problems that can be faced by individuals with disabilities. We have also been careful to ensure that our website can be viewed with every major commercially available web browser and, where appropriate, we have responded to any comments made on our website within 24 hours.

---

The review process

"You have been prompt, diligent and open with us and have acted as an 'honest broker' in investigating complaints about the Charity Commission" Complainant

The office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer is responsible for providing an unbiased, considered opinion of the handling of complaints by the Charity Commission. We are available to all customers of the Commission, whether individuals, charities, professional advisers or other organisations. Our role is to be a referee, ensuring that the complaints process undertaken by the Charity Commission is both fair and transparent and that the Commission takes the opportunities it is given to learn from these complaints.

The ICR says: "I regard my role in identifying systemic weaknesses and recommending possible improvements to customer services as one of my fundamental responsibilities." The Charity Commission has accepted all of the recommendations made by the ICR in her reports, and this has already resulted in a number of wide-reaching changes in Commission practice.

If the ICR's review reveals that there has been maladministration in the way that the Commission has dealt with a customer, whether of a systemic nature or related to individual customer care, she can take the following action:

The office of the ICR also helps customers who have not yet been through the whole of the Commission's internal complaint procedure. At this stage, we cannot carry out an investigation but there is an increasing demand for advice and information from Commission customers who are unsure how to proceed in taking matters forward. In appropriate circumstances, we will act as an intermediary between the complainant and the Commission and will seek to resolve the problems raised with us through conciliation. This accords with the ICR's commitment to try to achieve a speedy local resolution of complaints, wherever possible.

Referral

There is no filter to the ICR service. A complaint can be made directly to us by the complainant or referred by the Charity Commission. Complaints can be referred by letter, telephone, fax or e-mail and will be acknowledged within one week of receipt.

In the first instance, where appropriate, we will try to help customers resolve matters with the Charity Commission. We consider conciliation to be an important part of our role. However, where resolution is not possible, we will give both the customer and the Charity Commission ample opportunity to put their views forward.

On receipt of the complaint referral we will notify the Charity Commission that we have heard from the complainant and ask whether the matter has been fully considered within the Commission's internal complaints procedures. We will also ask for the Commission's initial comments about the complaint.

Complaint referrals

Complaint activity has remained steady over the two-year period. During our first year the ICR's office received 43 complaints and in the 9-month period this year, we have received 31 referrals. Given that, at inception, there were a number of long standing complaints 'waiting in the wings', this seems to speak well for the Commission's new internal complaints process. However, the independent review office will need to monitor these figures carefully over future years. Our experience of other organisations is that numbers of referrals do tend to rise as people become more aware of the service and it would not be surprising if this were the trend over the next year or so.

Nevertheless, although the numbers of referrals to this office have not risen year on year, there is no doubt that we are lot busier than we were in our first year. This is generally because complaint reviews commenced in that year were reaching the final stages of investigation towards the end of the year or as we entered the second year. The nature of our procedure means that we are always working 'in arrears' in terms of complaints, which do not reach the formal stages of review until some time after they are first received. In addition, we have investigated some particularly complex and contentious cases during the course of the pilot and this has affected the time taken to present 'formal' reports.

What they were about

Whereas in 2000 the Commission's Charity Support Division was the leading service area for complaints, in 2001 this has been the Investigations Division (57% and 28% respectively for 2000, 38% and 47% for 2001). This may reflect a change in the Commission's working practices, however it is too soon yet to say whether this is the case and figures will need to be monitored to see whether this trend is maintained. 85% of our referrals emanate from these two service areas and this is unsurprising, given the complex and contentious nature of some casework.

Numbers of complaints arising from the Database service area (account return compliance and accuracy of the register) has remained consistently very low over the two years.

In 2000, we received a small but significant number of complaints arising from the legal service area. There have been none so far this year. Given the way in which the Commission currently operates, with lawyers as providers of confidential advice, this service area is unlikely to generate many complaints. However, this is somewhat illusory given that a significant proportion of actions taken by Charity Support and Investigations staff are directly based upon legal and procedural advice that they have received. Charity Commission lawyers usually only become directly involved in particularly contentious cases and it is in these rare circumstances that complaints about this area have arisen.

Referrals by category

Over the two years, complaints about Commission practice and delay have consistently featured highly in our referrals. The issues identified normally arise from customers' dissatisfaction with the Commission's action (or inaction) in dealing with problems that they have raised about particular charities. This is often related to a lack of understanding of the Commission's powers or a refusal to accept the scope and range of them. On other occasions, complaints have arisen because of a mismanagement of expectations on the Commission's part.

Allegations of bias have remained a small but significant proportion of the complaints that we have received.

So far this year, we have seen a drop of 6% in the proportion of complaints received about complaints handling itself. This is a welcome early indication of the greater clarity that has been introduced in the Commission's complaints handling processes.

Who Complained?

Over 80% of complaint referrals were received from members of the public as opposed to those received from charities or their representatives. This preponderance of complaints received directly from the public reflects our experience of other public bodies.

The Outcomes

Of the complaints that have proceeded to investigation and conclusion, we completed investigations into 59 allegations of maladministration of which 16 were either fully or partially upheld. 30 complaints are still undergoing investigation.

The Charity Commission's internal complaints review procedure

During the period of the pilot, the Charity Commission has reviewed its appeal and complaint procedures. The outcome of this review is to be published at the end of the pilot; however, new procedures have already been introduced. When a complaint is made about the Charity Commission, customers usually contact a front-line member of the Commission staff (a divisional case officer) at the Commission office concerned. Commission procedures require this to be written contact and the case officer concerned is expected to try to resolve matters straightaway, or as soon as possible. If not resolved immediately, the complaint will be referred to a Customer Service Manager. There is a Customer Service Manager at each of the Commission offices.

The Customer Service Manager will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and will again try to sort matters out. This is often done in consultation with an internal professional adviser. If this proves not to be possible, he or she can refer the complaint to the Regional Operations Manager. It is also possible for the Customer Service Manager to seek advice from someone with the appropriate legal or technical expertise needed to comment upon a complaint about a particularly complex matter. Ultimately, the Regional Operations Manager, who is the most senior 'local' manager, can review what has happened and respond to the complainant. For people who are not satisfied by the Commission's initial responses to their complaints, going through the whole of the internal complaints procedure can take a considerable time. However, the changes to the procedures have certainly had a noticeable and positive impact on complaint handling within the Commission.

All of the complaints reviewed by the ICR have already been fully considered within the Commission's complaint procedures and as such have been subjected to internal scrutiny by senior Charity Commission officers.

Some Commission customers have suggested that the internal review should include yet a further stage of scrutiny and response by a Commissioner. Our concern is that this will unnecessarily prolong the length of time taken to get through the process and may act as a barrier to referral to this office. Indeed, rather than prolong the process, there may well be cases where the Customer Service Manager has sought the advice of the local Regional Operations Manage prior to giving his or her response to the complainant. In such cases, there may be advantages to expediting matters for both the Charity Commission and the complainant.

It is generally acknowledged that most complaints are made by telephone. Whilst the majority of these will be resolved at an early stage, it is important that information arising from them is recorded and collated, so that vital management information is not missed. It is fair to say that the Commission does not record all of the complaints received and, as yet, reports only those received in writing. Nevertheless, the Commission is undertaking a review of its communication and information gathering strategies to find ways in which both staff and customers can bring commonly faced problems or single cases to the attention of managers at an appropriately senior level. These may highlight underlying systemic issues, which the Commission may wish to address.

The independent complaints review process

After exhausting the complaint procedure offered by the Charity Commission, the complainant can choose to refer their problem to the ICR. It is incumbent on the ICR to recognise the resource imbalance that exists between individual complainants, often members of the public on the one hand and the Commission on the other and to be as helpful in our dealings with complainants as possible.

There are certain complaints which cannot be investigated by the ICR. These include, but are not limited to, complaints concerning the law or statutory decisions taken by the Commission and complaints that have not been referred within three months of the completion of the Commission's internal complaints procedure. The ICR will investigate complaints about maladministration, including:

On receiving a complaint, we respond to the customer within 24 hours, taking the opportunity to give as much information as possible about the complaints review process. If the complaint falls outside of the ICR's remit, the complainant is given a full explanation of why the ICR is unable to take matters further. Once we have confirmed that the internal procedure has been exhausted, we proceed to agree a summary of the complaint with the complainant. Once agreed, this is sent to the Charity Commission and will establish the terms of reference for any investigation undertaken by the ICR. This investigation will include a review of the Charity Commission's files and records.

The first purpose of these inquiries is to ascertain whether we have enough information for the ICR to be able to respond fully to the complaint at that stage or if it should become the subject of a 'formal' report. The ICR will let both the complainant and the Commission know the outcome of her inquiries and whether or not the complaint will require a 'formal' report. Where the ICR concludes that her investigation is completed, a full response is given to the complainant and to the Charity Commission by letter without further ado. In addition to explaining the ICR's findings, the letter will give information about how a complaint can be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Both this initial investigation and the formal review can involve personal interviews with complainants and members of Charity Commission staff. Depending on the complexity of the complaint, this can all take a considerable length of time. To reassure the complainant that the ICR's office is still 'on the case', we will contact the complainant periodically, usually by letter or by telephone. In the case of a 'formal' review, once the ICR has completed a statement on the factual background to the complaint, both the customer and the Charity Commission are given an opportunity to comment on its factual accuracy before the ICR completes her report. The 'formal' report will include the ICR's findings on each of the points laid down in the initial summary of complaint and copies will be sent to both parties.

Where a complaint is upheld and recommendations are made, the Commission has agreed to implement them immediately. This is the clear expectation of the customer, who is entitled to expect no less, given the very long time that they may have waited for 'justice' and it is the essence of demonstrating the Commission's accountability and commitment to the review process.

Our performance

We set ambitious speed of service targets. Once again this year we have achieved most of our targets but lack of staff resource did present difficulties, particularly in our second year. Despite this, we have responded to all telephone calls and correspondence in a timely way (usually within 24 hours) and dealt with all referrals for advice and assistance well within our seven-day limit (again usually within 24 hours).

On occasion, it has taken longer than our 3-week target to agree a summary of the complaint. Although this is usually done in time, it can take somewhat longer to help complainants to focus in on the specific points of complaint that they would like to have investigated; in one case this took as long as 15 weeks. Nevertheless, it is particularly important to reach agreement between all the parties as to the subject of the complaint at this early stage to enable the Commission to give a response to all of the issues and to focus the investigation appropriately. This can save problems and concerns from arising later on.

We were pleased to complete our initial investigations in an average of 10 weeks, well within our 12-week target. The average time taken to complete all investigations was 20 weeks. In some cases, the complex and contentious nature of the complaint, the pure 'size' of the Commission's files and extent of the information provided by the complainant meant that it was extremely difficult to remain within time targets. It is no exaggeration to say that these cases can stretch back over several years (in one case over 15 years) and the files can be stacked several feet high. As a result, 'formal' reports, that is those responded to by report rather than by letter, took an average of 35 weeks to complete.

Whilst our experience and positive feedback from complainants show that the thoroughness and quality of the investigation remains paramount and cannot be compromised to speed, we are determined to set more challenging targets for our office and to find effective ways of meeting them.

Internal complaints

During the period of the pilot the ICR received 4 complaints about our service. Each complainant received a written acknowledgement and explanation of our internal procedure within 24 hours and a full response from the ICR well within our 5-day target.

Equal Opportunities

The ICR is committed to providing a complete and impartial service to all customers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability or religion. In order to further this policy, during the last year we introduced an Equal Opportunities questionnaire to monitor trends in usage of our services. The questionnaire is now available on our Internet site. As yet, it is too early to present any results but we hope that, in the future, information gleaned from completed questionnaires will be analysed, in order to identify any trends or specific areas of need, with the object of improving the service provided to complainants.

Our pledges

Complainants can expect certain standards from the ICR and her team.

Part 2 of the Report

Back to the top