Planning an investigation

If a complaint cannot be resolved at an early stage, and any potential fault may have had a significant impact on the person complaining or the wider public, further investigation may be necessary. The investigation should focus on the same questions considered in the previous section on taking a proportionate approach to complaints. This will support a focused and proportionate approach to an investigation:

• What, if anything, has gone wrong?
• What was the impact on the person complaining and/ or the wider public?
• What action should be taken to put things right?

When investigating complaints these questions should generally be considered sequentially.

Complaint handlers should consider how long it may take to investigate a complaint and provide the complainant with an estimated timescale in an acknowledgement letter. If the complaint handler believes it will take longer than timescales allowed under the relevant procedure, they should explain why. This may be because the complaint is complex and will require the complaint handler to consider lots of information or because information is needed from a third party and this may take time to gather.

When planning an investigation the complaint handler should consider the following:

• What should have happened? (i.e. what does the relevant legislation, guidance, policies and procedures say should happen in this case)
• What information do you already have about what happened? (e.g. case records, information from the complainant or their representative etc.)
• What information do you need about what happened? (e.g. are there gaps in records or a dispute about events that took place and how will this be addressed)

Complaint handlers should recognise that they are reaching decisions based on the civil standard of evidence, sometimes referred to as ‘balance of probabilities’. This is different from the criminal standard of evidence which requires something to be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This means complaint handlers do not always need to see every record or piece of correspondence to reach a view about what happened.

Obtaining evidence

The following is a list of evidence which should be considered in most cases. This is not an exhaustive list and complaint handlers should consider what evidence is relevant to the complaint they are dealing with at the time.

• Relevant legislation, guidance, policies and procedures: Complaint handlers are encouraged to check their understanding of any relevant legislation, guidance, policies and procedures every time they deal with a complaint. This makes sure complaint handlers consider versions in force at the time of the events complained of and versions in force now. This ensures they consider the individual circumstances of the complaint against the organisation’s legal duties and powers.

• Case records: Organisations delivering public services should have effective administration processes in place to ensure there are clear contemporaneous records of action taken or decisions made. It should be possible for complaint handlers to have a clear picture of what happened in an individual case from reading the case records. Complaint handlers are not expected to review all case records. Investigations should be focused on records that are relevant to the complaint.

• Evidence from the complainant and/or their representative: Complaint handlers should not automatically assume that an organisation’s records are more reliable than records kept by complainants or their representatives. Complainants and their representatives may have copies or emails and other correspondence which is not present on file. Representatives may also have their own case management system with contemporaneous records of interactions with the organisation. Often the only evidence a complainant can provide is their own recollection and this should not be ignored as evidence.

• Other bodies/ organisations: Complaint handlers should consider whether other organisations or bodies may hold records that may support the investigation of the complaint. This may be contracted services or other public bodies dealing the matter complained of at the same time.

Interviews with staff

There may be occasions where a quick conversation with an officer or member of staff can clear up confusion or provide some helpful context to the complaint. Complaint handlers should keep clear notes of these conversations and make these notes available to complainants on request.

However, officers and members of staff should only be formally interviewed as part of a complaint investigation in limited circumstances. Contemporaneous records and other supporting evidence should provide a clear understanding of what happened in each case and are generally more reliable than individual’s memories of what happened. Interviews should only be necessary where there is a conflict of evidence that cannot be reconciled in any other way or there are gaps in records and a decision cannot be reached without addressing these. Generally, recollections of officers and others should be given less weight than contemporaneous written records when reaching decisions on complaints.

As explained earlier in this guide, complaint handlers should recognise that they are reaching decisions based on the civil standard of evidence, sometimes referred to as ‘balance of probabilities’. This is different from the criminal standard of evidence which requires something to be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This means complaint handlers do not always need to speak to everyone involved in a case to reach a view about what happened.

Interviews can be stressful for those subject to a complaint and a complaint investigation is not the appropriate means of looking at concerns about individual conduct or performance unless undertaken as part of a formal disciplinary investigation. Interviews also take officers and staff away from their core role, so complaint handlers should ensure there is a clear rationale for the interview.

If an interview does take place, complaint handlers should ensure that notes are taken or an audio recording made of any interview and placed on file.