Independent Complaints Reviewer

Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity Commission - Report November 2001 - Page 2

Making a difference

"It has been my good fortune to be privileged by your acceptance to devote so much time reviewing so comprehensively such a case. I am gratified to note that, arising out of the complaint, consideration is to be given to avoid future misunderstandings between the parties involved." Complainant

An independent complaints review process is a means of providing 'quality assurance' for public bodies. Throughout the pilot, the Charity Commission has sought to take advantage of the learning opportunities presented through the ICR process, by bringing about worthwhile changes to its practice and procedures.

Each of the cases I have reviewed has been unique. Each differs because of the individual circumstances and the personalities of those involved. However, in many cases there are commonalities - similar situations or failures in service that have been encountered during the course of interacting with the Charity Commission or bringing a complaint against it. As ICR, it is a part of my role to identify those trends and to make systemic recommendations designed to improve the Commission's service and to bring about lasting change, which will benefit the Commission itself as well as its future customers.

My reports into individual complaints are sent both to the Commission and to complainants. In addition, I have been able to provide more general remarks in my regular meetings with the Commission and in my annual reports. The end of the pilot is an appropriate juncture at which to look back at some changes the ICR process has encouraged the Charity Commission to introduce for the benefit of customers.

The value of complaints

An integral part of my role during the pilot has been to offer advice to the Commission during the development of its complaints handling strategy. The Commission has sought to ensure that its procedures are appropriate to a modern public organisation.

However, management intentions cannot be translated into good practice unless their staff have a commitment to the principles that underlie them. Many public bodies struggle with this, as it requires a change in old-fashioned attitudes, which tended to regard complaints in a negative way. Today, public organisations are encouraged to welcome complaints as an essential element of customer feedback, providing valuable management information.

The Commission has made a remarkable effort to deliver this culture change. Through personal reassurance by senior managers, through the publication of new complaints handling guidance and the development of relevant training, the Commission has succeeded in raising the profile and significance of complaints handling amongst its front line staff.

I am now keen to see similar emphasis placed upon the importance of capturing the information to be derived from verbal complaints and compliments, in addition to that which emanates from written complaints. I know from my visits to Commission offices that customers offer considerably more praise than they do criticism, and I also know that staff receive and resolve many more complaints than those recorded. However, concerns about greater amounts of paperwork and an overly bureaucratic approach to these issues mitigates against the recording all of this information.

To address this issue, the Commission is undertaking a review of 'customer service' and communication issues. It is also undertaking a 'quality' review to further develop a holistic approach to its casework and follow-up procedures.

Learning from complaints

During the second year of the pilot, the Commission set up a Customer Service Group to review recommendations made in reports and to direct their implementation. Chaired by a Regional Operations Manager, the group is drawn from across the Commission and includes representatives from each key business area and a 'non-executive' Commissioner who is also charged with the responsibility of being the Board's Consumer Champion Commissioner.

The group considers all ICR reports and the minutes of its meetings are presented as an agenda item at the Commission's main operational business meetings. The Commission's expectation is that these mechanisms will ensure that generic lessons are widely disseminated through the organisation. It will be particularly interesting to monitor the change and development delivered through this forum over the coming years. In addition, the Commission is using electronic database systems to record and track the outcome of reports and its actions in response to them.

At the end of the day, it is important to judge the Commission by its actions, to see whether it has put best intentions into practice. The development of a more structured response to complaints and to the implementation of recommended improvements in practice has been particularly encouraging.

Individual Complaints

"Some very useful lessons have been learned on these cases which have helped us to move our business on." Commission officer

The value of complaints lies in the information they provide for organisations prepared to take a constructively critical look at the way in which they deliver services. This requires a willingness to support the two-way flow of information arising from all customer feedback, including complaints, between staff and management.

The Commission has accepted all of the recommendations made in reports on individual complaints, and a number of resulting changes have been made. Here are a few examples:

Recommendation - To review approach and response to individuals raising concerns about charities.

Crisper, more focussed style of response developed.
Recommendation - To review approach and response to individuals raising concerns about charities.

Crisper, more focussed style of response developed.
Recommendation - To review public leaflets and internal guidance to ensure customers do not harbour unrealistic expectations of Commission.

Under current review.
Recommendation - Review of complaints correspondence to ensure appropriate 'signposting' for customers.

Included in new complaints procedures.
Recommendation - To consider procedural changes to improve transparency and structure of practice.

Practice reviewed. 'Intensive care' caseworking methods further developed.

I have been pleased to see examples of the positive approach that the Commission has taken to sharing good practice by explaining the outcome of independent reviews and the lessons to be learned to team managers. Managers are encouraged to share this information with front line staff "so that complaints of this nature are unlikely to occur in the future." Commission

It is clear from complaints that I have more recently reviewed that the Commission's internal investigation is both more structured and rigorous than was the case prior to the pilot. I have also seen examples of what I would describe as 'model' responses to complaints, where lessons learned have been widely disseminated.

All of this is good news. It represents the establishment of sound foundations upon which the Commission and its ICR can build for the future. At the end of the day, an ICR process cannot, in and of itself, make a difference to the way in which an organisation treats its customers, unless that organisation is itself committed to a continuous programme of improvement. However, the ICR process can be a catalyst for change. By using it in this way, the Commission demonstrates its ongoing commitment to customer service.

Seeking views

"I cannot too strongly express my gratitude for the way in which you have undertaken this project and, without making any promises, secured for us an element of objectivity which we were being denied." Complainant

A major challenge for any independent complaints handling organisation is to maintain an open minded and innovative approach to our work, seeking to learn for the experience and opinions of others.

The ICR's office is grateful to all of the other independent complaint review and Ombudsman organisations with which we have a continuing, constructive dialogue. We value our membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) and the opportunities it offers to learn from other organisations and to share good practice. We take an active interest in the Association and, during the past year, the ICR has served on working groups and our office manager, Andrew Robertson, has taken on the responsibilities of Secretary to BIOA's Managers' Group.

Feedback

During the course of the pilot, we have sought the views of users of the service and of Charity Commission staff to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our customers. The information we receive, whether complimentary or critical, is welcome and is used to help us to improve our service.

Complainants

"We would like to thank you for the courteous and respectful way in which you conducted the enquiry. It was the first glimpse of sanity we received since the start of this nightmare saga." Complainant

All respondents to our customer service questionnaires welcomed the introduction of the service and considered that was a good idea. In responding to questions about our practice and procedures, all those who responded to specific questions regarding communication were satisfied that we had kept them informed throughout the process. In response to our general questions about our service, we are pleased to report that 100% of complainants found the ICR and her staff courteous and helpful.

Our respondents were also complimentary about both our speed of response to communications and our efficiency. However, not all respondents were happy with our investigation and, in general, this related to the outcome of the review. We were pleased that, on the whole, even when complaints had not been upheld, complainants did not consider that any part of our handling of the enquiry could have been better and were satisfied that the ICR had considered their complaint in an impartial way.

Sadly, some complainants remain sceptical about whether an ICR service will help to prevent a matter similar to their complaint from happening again. Demonstrating accountability is a major challenge for all public bodies and independent complaint review processes. We hope that the inclusion of examples of change in this report will go some way to addressing this concern.

Charity Commission staff

"I think a process like this is essential in balancing accountability with an objective view of what is reasonable on the part of the complainant." Commission officer

Charity Commission respondents have confirmed that independent review is now an accepted and generally respected addition to the Commission's own response to complaints. Over both years of the pilot, almost without exception, the Commission's officers have considered the ICR scheme to be a good and worthwhile idea.

"I think it is in the interests of both the Commission and the customer to go thorough an 'independent' review stage as the 'final' stage of the complaints procedure." Commission officer

We were again pleased that all officers who have come into contact with us have found ICR staff both courteous and helpful.

The ICR "and her team are always very open and offer constructive suggestions which aid successful case handling." Commission officer

In the first year of the pilot, a third of respondents indicated that they felt they did not know enough about the ICR scheme to advise customers about it. It is pleasing that, in our second year, almost 90% of respondents were confident that they knew enough about the ICR scheme to offer advice. Similarly high percentages considered that they knew how the ICR process fits into the internal procedure and how the ICR process works. These results indicate that the Commission has been effective in educating the Commission's staff about the complaint procedures and about the ICR office.

It is always difficult to raise awareness about an independent process and to help staff to see how it might affect them as individuals. During the pilot the ICR has made a number of visits to Commission offices and this has proved an effective way of helping people to understand the process. Survey results indicate that these visits have helped in this effort and 70% of respondents found them helpful in raising their own level of awareness.

Whilst views on the outcomes of review can be expected to differ depending on whether or not complaints have been upheld, it is gratifying to report that respondents have indicated a high approval rating for review outcomes. Nearly 90% felt that outcomes had been helpful both to the Commission and to the complainants. 70% felt that the outcomes represented a fair resolution and added value by bringing matters to a conclusion.

"With the support of the ICR, the decision made was final and supported by the process. It provided us with the facility of not having to deal with unnecessary correspondence." Commission officer

Nevertheless, not everyone is happy with the reported outcome of cases or agrees that an ICR process is a good use of scarce resources.

"In principle, it's good to have an independent review system. God forbid that the Civil Service should return to its old 'faceless bureaucracy' days (though some feel it never left them!). However, I think that the pendulum has swung too far and what we have now is a whinger's charter through which great chunks of resources can be wasted by petty minded individuals with cranky axes to grind." Commission officer

Independent accreditation

It is not always easy for a complaints review organisation to receive independent accreditation for the quality of its internal processes. This year, however, we are pleased to report that we became one of the first organisations in the UK to receive a coveted BSI certificate for our complaint management systems. The ICR says "I congratulate my office staff whose unswerving commitment to the quality of our service has led to this achievement".

BSI standard CMSAS 86:2000 relates to the quality of our own internal complaints procedure in dealing with complaints about this office and demands adherence to the highest standards. It is entirely appropriate that, charged with reviewing complaints about other public bodies, this office seeks to 'benchmark' our own processes in an objective way. We will continue to strive for excellence in service delivery.

Public standards

The ICR's office adheres to accepted principles of good administrative practice. We take account of other public service and complaints handling guidelines where appropriate, and ensure that our research is kept up to date. We make every effort to keep abreast of forthcoming changes in legislation and policy, to enable our staff to offer appropriate advice and information to users of our service.

Freedom of information

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives statutory support to the Government's code of practice on access to government information, which aims to make it easier for people to get information about policy and administrative decisions that affect them.

The general perception of a lack of transparency and a tendency towards secrecy on the part of public authorities has been a key factor in creating an unwarranted and unhelpful divide between an increasingly sceptical public and those who administer public services on our behalf. In common with the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act is a further step towards making government both more open and more accountable to the citizen. The Act requires a government organisation to place the public interest before its own, thereby enhancing respect for the rights of the individual.

In my report last year, when considering the Human Rights Act, I said: "In effect it places a legal as well as a moral obligation on all public bodies to develop a culture which aims to satisfy the legitimate expectations of the individual customer and to deal with problems that arise in an open and positive manner." This statement is equally true of the Freedom of Information Act.

Once the Act takes effect, when a request for information is made to a public authority subject to its provisions, that authority will be required to provide all of the information requested, save that which is covered by any of the exemptions set out in the Act. Except for 'absolute' exemptions, consideration must always be given to 'the public interest' in disclosing the information in question. When a public authority determines that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing information, the information requested must be disclosed to the applicant. This will mean that public authorities will not be able to operate a 'blanket' policy of non-disclosure.

As part of its daily activities, the Charity Commission provides extensive information to members of the public and their advisers. In respect of information not generally available, the Charity Commission's practice is to consider whether, in all the circumstances, disclosure is appropriate. However, any such future decisions will need to be considered in the light of the Freedom of Information Act and decisions taken and the reasons for them recorded.

The Commission gives the ICR authority to use information drawn from its files in the drafting of reports. However, it is not uncommon for complainants to ask the ICR's office for information from Charity Commission files, which are in our possession for the purpose of review. Our office policy is that we hold the files 'on loan' and, accordingly, decisions regarding disclosure must be taken by the Charity Commission itself.

Nevertheless, in relation to our own files we are reviewing our policies and procedures and will continue to monitor the effect of the Act. We will ensure that, as and when it is appropriate, information about the Office of the Information Commissioner is readily available to complainants.

ICR's overview

During the course of the pilot, I have visited Charity Commission offices in London, Liverpool and Taunton on a number of occasions to learn at first-hand from front line staff about the services that they provide. I have greatly valued this opportunity, which has enabled me to bring an informed and evenhanded approach to my work and I am encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm of staff and by the mainly positive feedback I receive. My visits have also allowed me to share information gleaned and lessons learned from the complaints referred to my office in a very direct way.

I have also visited a number of Charity Commission 'stakeholders' including firms of solicitors and accountants and other customer representative organisations. This has been an invaluable way of learning about the Commission from the viewpoint of its customers. In general, it is fair to say that the Commission is highly regarded throughout the charitable sector and beyond. However, there are always going to be exceptions to this. Some customers, particularly those who have been on the 'sharp end' of regulatory decisions, consider the Commission both overly bureaucratic in its processes and autocratic in its decision making. I am grateful for the courtesy and thoughtful responses of all those connected with the sector with whom I have come into contact and I take this opportunity of publicly thanking them all for their interest and comments.

For the customer, a complaint that has been pursued as far as my office represents, at the very least, several months of determined effort. People will have been through all of the stages in the process and will have had to relive their concerns and disappointments on numerous occasions. In order to do this, they must be both determined and resilient and by the time their complaints are referred to me, most have an extremely jaded view of the Commission, whether justified or not.

Complaints often arise because customers do not understand the Commission's role or the way in which it undertakes its important function. From a layman's perspective, it is vital that the Commission explains its role in a clear and direct way and does not lead customers to expect more than it can achieve. On occasion, a lack of focus in the way that the Commission handled things had exacerbated matters, dragged things out and contributed to the anxiety and frustration experienced by customers who, in many cases, are already embroiled in problems with charities. In addition, this has added to the heavy workload of busy staff who have not felt empowered to move matters on.

There are also times when complainants have been unreasonable in their demands of the Commission and, sadly, instances where members of the public have been discourteous to the point of rudeness. This is simply unacceptable and, on occasion, I have felt it necessary to comment upon it in my report. In these kinds of situations, both staff and customers need the 'protection' of clear policies, which guide them in how to deal with such matters with fairness and consistency, whilst ensuring that the 'substance' of the complaint is properly considered.

As an organisation committed to customer service, the Commission is sometimes tempted to try to do more than it really ought or to continue correspondence long after there is nothing further than can be usefully said. Whilst this instinct may be laudable, in my view, this can be as unhelpful to the customer as it is to the Commission. Again, clear policies and fair procedures for dealing with these situations can ensure that valuable staff resources are spread fairly and proportionately across the whole of the Commission's work.

I am pleased to see that real progress has been made towards adding clarity and structure to internal complaint procedures. In practice, this has meant a three-stage process; written communication with a case officer; complaint referral to the Customer Service Manager and final review by the Regional Operations Manager. During this year, a more focussed Commission response has meant that, in most cases, complaints are dealt with in a courteous and timely manner.

During the pilot, I received a number of complaint referrals about the way in which the Commission responded to various problems. It is fair to say that many of these 'customer service' issues ran alongside concerns about 'decisions' that the Commission had taken, which cannot in themselves be the subject of review. There is, I accept, often a fine line between decision and process. Whilst I make every effort to tread this line carefully, inevitably there are occasions when my comments on the process leading to a decision have proved controversial.

Whilst our statistics demonstrate that most complaints have not been upheld, there are some within the Commission who feel that I am not even-handed and that my decisions in certain cases are "...heavily weighted to the complainant" Commission officer. On the other hand, there are some complainants who have also felt that my decisions have been biased in favour of the Commission. This is the nature of independent review. One can do no more than look at each case on its own merits and provide as fair a judgement as possible. In the end, it is this independence of view from an 'informed' outsider that makes the process worthwhile. I am particularly grateful to all those who, regardless of the outcome of my review, have been kind enough to praise our service and recognise the time effort put in and the painstaking way in which we conduct reviews.

There have also been a number of complaint referrals about delay. Often this did not reflect dissatisfaction with specific instances of delay, although this did feature, but related to the overall length of time that it had taken the Commission to deal with matters. In some cases this was several years. These kinds of complaints are common to most Ombudsman and review services and remind us all of the need to be vigilant about the speed of our own response.

I am conscious that our review process has not always been as speedy as we would like it to be. This has been rightly criticised. "The review took a long time and a great deal of effort to conclude what was obvious in the first place". Commission officer. However, in looking to the future, I am hopeful that the Commission will accept its own role in providing its independent reviewer with appropriate staff resources to enable complaints to be turned around more quickly.

Complaints received by the Charity Commission can be challenging to resolve, can necessitate an extremely time consuming consideration of the files and the copious amounts of information provided by complainants. Some of these complaints might have been avoided if the Commission had been able to employ at the time the more robust procedures that it now has in place.

This year a change in the ICR procedures has enabled me to recommend consolatory payments in appropriate circumstances. Recommendations have not been for large amounts of money, given the requirement to remain within Treasury guidelines. However, complainants have welcomed these recommendations as a tangible recognition of the stress and anxiety that they have suffered as a consequence of the Commission's handling of matters. Given the unusual nature of some complaints, it was agreed that there might be rare circumstances where payments might be made to the charity itself rather than to individuals. To date, I have recommended this only once.

As the pilot has progressed, there has been a more open-minded approach to complaints within the Commission and a greater willingness to accept that the Commission is not always right. As ever, I cannot overstate the power and importance of an early apology where things have not been handled as well as they might. It has the force to turn complaints into compliments. Finally, as I offer some examples of complaints referred to me during the pilot, it is as well to remember the vast majority of satisfied Charity Commission customers, who believe, with justification, that the Charity Commission delivers excellent service and excellent value for the charitable sector and for the public.

To view the Digest of Casework, please click this link.

Back to Contents