Introduction

Councils should consider people’s rights as part of dealing with complaints. A rights-based approach to complaint handling means putting the complainant and their individual circumstances at the centre of the process. 

We do not expect members of the public to frame their complaints in the language of human rights – councils should have the ability to identify when a complaint is connected to a rights-based issue without being told.

We only receive a small fraction of the total complaints made about local services. So, unless complaint handling staff are suitably trained on recognising when and how to consider people’s basic rights, many people could be having them withheld. 

In the same way some people need extra help to access council services, some will need extra help communicating with councils to allow them to give feedback or raise a complaint. We expect councils to show how they have thought about the barriers people face in making complaints and explore ways to remove them. 
We have long extolled the virtues of organisations that use complaints as a source of learning. Considering whether individuals’ rights have been affected can help councils reflect and improve service design and delivery across the whole organisation by, for example, identifying training needs or sharing examples of good practice.

Hamid’s story: Not listening to the complainant

(Case ref: 20 031 111)

Hamid’s children lived with his ex-partner. He had reported to the police that his child had told him their mother’s partner had hit them. The police informed the council.

Hamid complained the council failed to notify him when it started to investigate the child protection concerns. As part of his complaint, he said the council had discriminated against him. 

In response, the council assured Hamid that it had not acted discriminatively and referred to its procedures to ensure both parents are contacted as part of an assessment. 

What we found 

We found the council failed to ask Hamid what type of discrimination he felt had occurred, and how it had affected him. This was wrong. The council should have sought to fully understand Hamid’s views about discrimination and obtain any evidence he had to support his claim. 

Hamid later clarified to them his complaint related to racial bias. However, the council refused to investigate the matter due to other legal proceedings. We criticised the council for failing to explain why the court action meant that it could not accept the complaint about racial bias. 

Putting it right

We found Hamid was caused avoidable distress and frustration by the council’s failure to seek clarification about his concerns and dismiss his complaint. 
The council agreed to pay Hamid a token amount for the avoidable distress, and to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It also reminded staff about the correct procedures and timescales in responding to complaints. 

Beth’s story: Failing to provide additional support when making complaints 

(Case ref: 21 005 266)

Beth complained that the council regularly failed to carry out her assisted bin collections. Assisted collections are a service for older or impaired residents who cannot move their own bins in and out for collection. Beth said the crew regularly failed to return her bin to the correct place. When the bin is left blocking her gate or the pathway, she cannot leave her property. This caused her to miss important medical appointments.

Beth also complained the council had failed in its Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments to how it communicates with her. The council asked her to email photographs each time there was a problem with her assisted collection. It said it would consider the matter closed if she didn’t make written reports with photographic evidence. Beth told the council that due to her disability, she could not take pictures and email the council as requested.

What we found 

The council acknowledged fault in how it delivered its assisted collection service for Beth.

We found the council failed to take Beth’s needs into account when it insisted she make her complaint in writing and that she provide photographs. This caused Beth unnecessary distress, and placed her at a substantial disadvantage to someone without a disability who wanted to pursue a complaint. 

Putting it right

The council agreed to apologise to Beth and pay her a token amount for the distress it caused. It would monitor Beth’s collections for three months. It also agreed to provide evidence of the steps it had taken to improve its record keeping and the way it made its complaints process accessible for people with disabilities.