Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director, People Services.

The Committee considered the report which set out the statutory Adults Services Complaints Annual report and the report of the Children and Families Services Complaints Annual report, together.

It was noted that paragraph 8, on page 94 had been included in the report in error.

Members asked the following questions, which were responded to accordingly:

·                     What was the nature of the complaints which had been escalated to stages 2 and 3?

·                     Both reports cited staff conduct (attitude & behaviour) as reasons for some of the complaints received.  What had been done to address this?

·                     What was the reason for the high level of MP and Councillor enquiries managed by the Complaints Team?

·                     What was being done to ensure complaints did not get referred on the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)?

The nature and complexity of complaints varied.  In some cases, it could be said that these were not complaints in the formal sense, but often turned out to be complex queries or even a cry for help.  Many of these were resolved through timely early intervention.  For a stage 1 complaint, officers would meet and have discussions with the service user or carer in question, to ascertain what the issues were and what outcome was desired by the complainant.  It was important to note that a large number of complaints were resolved early or withdrawn.

In the case of Adults, a stage 2 complaint would be referred on to a senior manager for further investigation.  The Children’s Act required stage 2 complaints to be looked at by an independent investigator.  Stage 3 complaints related exclusively to children’s services complaints, which required the setting up of a complaints Review Panel.

The disproportionately large number of complaints against staff, were investigated, and very few found in favour of the client or complainant.  Many of these related to unfavourable news (such as a child being removed from the family home), or a service not being provided.  In cases where the staff had been found to be at fault, additional supervision was put in place and further training undertaken by the staff member.

Although the number of representations made by MPs and Councillors had reduced for Children’s Services this was not the case for Adults.  This may be because the residents were increasingly confident about consulting their MPs and Councillors.  These cases were often more complex.  An officer undertook to look into this and provide further information about the nature of these complaints to Members after the meeting.

Managing clients’ expectations was a key aspect in reducing the number of complaints being registered.  In the cases referred to he LGO, although mediation and officer meetings were offered, the clients did not take up the offer.

The Committee requested that in the future draft copies of all reports being considered by the Committee should be sent to both the relevant Scrutiny Lead Member and the Scrutiny Performance Member ahead of the agenda being published.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and OIder People congratulated officers for their work in dealing with complaints across both Adults and Children’s sections.  He added that the proportion of complaints received in relation to the large number of clients and the volume of transactions undertaken by the Directorate, was extremely favourable.  He also drew the Committee’s attention to the compliments received by both sections.

RESOLVED:  That both reports be noted.