The complaint handling process

‘When an individual expresses dissatisfaction that could meet the criteria for a complaint …  they should be given the opportunity to make a complaint. Organisations should recognise that individuals may be reluctant to raise complaints out of fear it may impact services they receive in future.”’(Paragraph 5.3 of the Complaint Handling Code)

The key to an open and transparent complaints process is ensuring that customer facing staff are aware of the complaints process and actively encourage people to raise concerns about the services they receive.

Involving those complained about

Front line officers may be concerned about being the subject of a complaint and this can be a barrier to complaints being accepted at service level. This can be addressed through well designed processes that seek to involve officers who are subject to a complaint and place responsibility for any fault on the organisation rather than the individual.

Organisations should provide officers with an opportunity to comment on any complaint received in which they are directly complained about. It is not proportionate or efficient to give all those involved an opportunity to comment where the complaint relates to wider service delivery.

Organisations should send details of the complaint to those named or directly referred to in a complaint and ask for their comments within a reasonable time period. Three working days should be sufficient to support the prompt resolution of the complaint. This does not need to be a formal process and in most cases a quick, informal conversation with individuals involved should be sufficient. If officers are not available (e.g. because they are on leave) then the organisation should consider the fairness of responding to the complaint without their comments against the needs of the person complaining.

Officers 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 an individual’s memories of what happened. Interviews should only be necessary where there is a conflict of evidence that cannot be reconciled 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 records when reaching decisions on complaints.

Interviews can be stressful for individuals 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 away from their core role, so organisations should ensure there is a clear rationale for the interview.

Complaint responses should focus on the actions of the organisation rather than the individual. This helps to depersonalise the complaint and focuses on the collective responsibility of the organisation as a whole, rather than seeking to blame individual error.

When responding to complaints organisations should, where possible, anonymise details of individual officers complained of by either referring to the actions of the organisation or referring to them as “the officer” or “Officer A”, “Officer B” etc. Once the organisation issues its decision on a complaint it loses control over where it may be published. Taking this approach protects the personal information and reputation of officers should a complainant choose to publish a complaint response online.

Below are some examples of how the wording of decisions can be changed:

Example A:

Original: “You say Officer Smith was rude to you when you approached reception. You say he refused to give you a leaflet about allotments and would not put you on the waiting list”

Anonymised version: “You say an officer was rude to you when you approached reception. You say we did not give you information about allotments and we declined to put you on the waiting list.”

Example B:

Original: “You say Officer White gave false information about you to the police”.

Anonymised version: “You say the organisation/ we gave false information to the police”.

Example C:

Original: “Officer Jones failed to provide you with temporary accommodation when you were homeless.”

Anonymised: “We failed to provide you with temporary accommodation when you were homeless.”

Example D:

Original: “Officer Grey discussed your case with her line manager, Senior Officer Blue”

Anonymised: “The officer dealing with your case discussed your situation with their manager”

Organisations may wish to use staff engagement channels such as surveys and other forums to gain feedback on staff experiences of the complaints system to ensure staff feel they are being treated fairly. If staff feel they are being treated fairly by the complaint system they are more likely to be open to accepting complaints.

The University of Glasgow & Queen Margaret University have produced good practice principles and guidelines for supporting staff who have been complained about. This is drawn from research carried out into the effects of complaints on employees.

Mediation and restorative engagement

‘Organisations should have a single policy for dealing with complaints covered by the Code.’ (Paragraph 5.1 of the Complaint Handling Code)

‘The early and local resolution of issues between organisations and individuals is key to effective complaint handling. Organisations should not have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’) as this causes unnecessary confusion.”’ (Paragraph 5.2 of the Complaint Handling Code)

Some organisations may decide to offer mediation or restorative conversations between services and complainants to resolve disputes. This can be especially beneficial where an organisation is providing ongoing or long-term services to an individual and maintaining a positive relationship will support service delivery.

However, such action should be taken as part of the complaint handling process set out in the Code when a complaint is made. This ensures that complainants are not being asked to navigate multiple processes to access redress.

The Code says that in most cases ‘organisations should be able to put things right through normal service delivery processes” and that organisations should have the opportunity to deal with a service request before a complaint is made’.

Organisations should ensure that mediation and restorative conversations are considered as an option when people first raise dissatisfaction or concerns as a service request. If this is not successful in resolving the issue the individual may raise a complaint.

This does not prevent organisations from offering mediation or restorative conversations through the complaints process where appropriate. These could be offered as a way of resolving complaints. However, complainants should not be prevented from escalating their concerns to the next stage of the process if they feel that mediation or restorative conversations have broken down or they do not wish to use this route.

Case management and record keeping

‘A full record should be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the individual, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports. This should be retained in line with the organisation’s data retention policies.’ (Paragraph 5.8 of the Complaint Handling Code).

Organisations should ensure that efficient case management systems are in place to facilitate the proper recording and tracking of complaints as well as the production of accurate performance data. For smaller organisations this may be possible through the use of spreadsheets, whereas larger organisations may require something more complex.

It is for each organisation to decide what resources are required to ensure the efficient running of complaints systems. The Ombudsman would not expect organisations to procure case management systems to be able to adopt the Code and it may be cost effective to use and adapt existing systems and software. However, organisations may choose to procure new case management systems because there are tangible benefits in doing so that outweigh initial costs by delivering efficiency savings.

This guide sets out recommended key performance indicators for organisations. These are designed so they can be tracked by a range of case management systems from simple spreadsheets through to bespoke software.

We have published guidance on Good Administrative Practice which provides more information on how to maintain effective records of actions and decisions taken.

Resources and support for complaint handlers

‘Organisations should have systems in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process. Organisations should ensure that appropriate remedies can be provided at any stage of the complaints process without the need for escalation to stage 2 or the Ombudsman’ (Paragraph 5.9 of the Complaint Handling Code)

Organisations should consider setting out expected behaviours for its complaint handlers to support a consistent approach to complaint handling in line with the principles of the Code. This is especially important where complaint handlers may work in different service areas and consider complaints alongside other responsibilities. The following behaviours are taken from the Ombudsman Association’s “Caseworker Competency Framework”. Organisations may find these helpful when setting out expected behaviours for complaint handlers:

• Analytical: Looks at evidence from all parties with a critical eye and is able to break complex complaints down into manageable parts.
• Impactful: Is able to consider the wider impact of any fault or poor practice identified and make “SMART” recommendations for personal remedies and service improvements.
• Constructive: Looks for mutually beneficial solutions, even if the organisation is not at fault. Reaches sustainable decisions, taking into account their practical implications.
• Approachable: Uses plain language that is easy to understand and shows awareness of how an approach impacts on others and adapts accordingly.
• Open-minded: Acts with neutrality and objectivity and is willing to reconsider decisions in light of new information or ideas. Is able to make difficult or unpopular decisions when necessary.
• Professional: Acts in accordance with fundamental principles of public life (Nolan Principles) and treats colleagues and complainants with the same level of courtesy. 

Organisations should consider what resources complaint handlers may need to be able to investigate and resolve complaints promptly. This includes the action and level of financial payments that can be approved quickly and efficiently without having to escalate the matter to Director level or higher which can result in delay.

Organisations should provide complaint handlers with a range of template documents to help them respond consistently throughout the process. This should include:

• Acknowledgement letters
• Update letters (i.e. letters providing an update on an investigation); and
• Decision letters.

Organisations may also consider building a central library of standard paragraphs explaining the law, policies and procedures for the most common complaints it receives. This will support complaint handlers to provide consistent explanations to the public about accepted practice in different services and support prompt responses to complaints.

Organisations should ensure complaint handlers have access to support and advice within the organisation and that complaint handlers receive relevant training before responding to complaints. We have produced a guide for complaint handlers setting out good practice for considering complaints under the Code and statutory complaints processes.

We think it is good practice for the following to be included in each complaint file:

• Details of the original complaint;
• Records of substantive contact with the complainant;
• A summary of key evidence considered and where this can be found;
• Copies of complaint responses; and
• Records of any agreed action being taken following the complaint, and evidence it has been completed.

Recording this information has many benefits including:

• Efficient continuation of complaint handling in the event of unexpected absence;
• Effective consideration of complaint at further stages by being able to see what work was carried out previously;
• Easier to manage and process complainant’s personal data in one place; and
• Easier to share information with the Ombudsman.

It is for each organisation to decide how best to store records in line with their own processes and data protection requirements.

Managing unreasonable actions

‘Organisations should have policies and procedures in place for managing unacceptable behaviour from individuals and/or their representatives. Organisations should be able to evidence reasons for putting any restrictions in place and should keep an individual’s restrictions under regular review… Any restrictions placed on an individual’s contact due to unacceptable behaviour should be proportionate and demonstrate regard for the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.’ (Paragraph 5.10 and 5.11 of the Complaint Handling Code)

In a small number of cases organisations may encounter individuals whose unreasonable actions have an adverse impact on service delivery and front-line officers. This should not impact the way the organisation deals with other people who raise complains.

We have produced guidance on managing unreasonable actions. This contains principles for dealing with people who act in an unreasonable way and practical steps that can be taken to address this. Organisations may consider this when developing their own policies and procedures.

Organisations should consider setting out expectations of complainant’s behaviour in any information about complaint processes online and elsewhere. The following is suggested wording which could be adopted where appropriate and is taken from the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman’s website:

Please help us to help you

In times of trouble or distress, some people may act out of character. There may have been upsetting or distressing circumstances leading up to a complaint. We do not view behaviour as unacceptable just because someone is forceful or determined.

We believe that all complainants should have the right to be heard, understood and respected. However, our staff also have the same rights. We, therefore, expect you to be polite and courteous in your dealings with us. We will not tolerate aggressive or abusive behaviour, unreasonable demands or unreasonable persistence.

Business continuity planning

There may be occasions when an organisation’s ability to respond to complaints is temporarily disrupted. This may be due to issues outside the organisations control such as cyber-attack or strike action. However sudden increases in demand for services or other pressures on services may also mean an organisation is temporarily unable to respond effectively to complaints.

Organisations should ensure complaint systems are included in business continuity and emergency plans. This should ensure members of the public are still able to raise concerns.

Where an organisation is unable to deliver its complaints system in the normal way it should inform the Ombudsman. The organisation should explain what the issue is, the steps it is taking to resolve the issue and when it expects services to return to normal. This will allow us to decide how to deal with any complaints we receive during this time.

Any temporary changes to complaints processes should be publicised on the organisation’s website. The organisation should also have a clear plan for returning to normal processes including expected timescales. It would not normally be appropriate to stop accepting complaints altogether.