Performance reporting and self-assessment

“Organisations should produce an annual complaints performance and service improvement report for scrutiny and challenge” (Paragraph 8.1 of the Complaint Handling Code)

The annual complaints performance and service improvement report provides organisations with an opportunity to publicly show that they are learning from complaints. This demonstrates to the public that the organisation is open to fair challenge and improving services as a result.

The Code says the annual complaints performance and service improvement report should be published on the organisation’s website. This should include the response to the report from the Member responsible for complaints. This demonstrates to the public that complaints about the organisation are subject to scrutiny and that statutory officers are being held accountable for performance.

Members, including the Member responsible for complaints should not hear individual complaints or have any direct involvement in how the organisation responds to individual complaints. This supports the importance of separating the administrative functions of the organisation from scrutiny mechanisms. It also prevents the risk of a breach of data protection legislation as sharing details of every complaint may make it easy to identify those complaining.

However, it is important that the Member is able to hear feedback from citizens and officers about their experiences of raising and handling complaints. It is also the case that learning from a single complaint can result in significant changes in practice within an organisation. We provide further information on how to support this later in this guide.

The Complaint Handling Code recommends organisations carry out a self-assessment against the Code. Whilst there is no legal obligation to carry out a self-assessment, this process can be helpful in demonstrating that an organisation is following the Code. If this is not the case, it provides an opportunity for organisations to highlight what work is being done to address this. If there are barriers to being able to address any issues, the annual report provides a way of highlighting this and seeking potential solutions such as the allocation of more resource. This supports the effective scrutiny of complaint handling.

The self-assessment is also a useful tool in ensuring that any significant changes within an organisation take account of complaint handling. It can help officers managing complaints processes to highlight potential risks with statutory officers and Members and help improve the visibility of complaints processes and demonstrate their wider value.

Key performance indicators

We have issued a set of recommended key performance indicators (KPIs) to help measure the effectiveness of complaint handling within organisations. These are designed to support organisations to measure and demonstrate best value.

Organisations are not obliged to report on these, but we believe these provide the most relevant information on complaint handling performance. Using our recommended KPIs also gives organisations an opportunity to benchmark performance against others who are also using these measures.

Organisations are strongly discouraged from setting targets in relation to complaint handling as this can result in officers focusing meeting these rather than providing a good outcome to the complaint.

Instead, we encourage organisations to benchmark performance across previous quarters and on a rolling 12-month basis. We also encourage organisations to benchmark performance against others who are using our recommended KPIs. Over time this will help to establish expected performance levels allowing organisations to analyse performance more closely when organisational, service level or individual performance deviates from expectations.

The KPIs are broken down into four key areas:

1. Number of complaints received.
2. Timeliness
3. Outcomes
4. Learning from complaints and remedies

1. Number of complaints received

The Complaint Handling Code says:

“High volumes of complaints should not be seen as a negative, as they can be indicative of a well-publicised and accessible complaints process.  Low complaint volumes are potentially a sign that individuals are unable to complain.”

The Member should be aware of increases and decreases in complaint numbers across the organisation and in individual service areas and ask officers for feedback on the reasons behind this.

The Member is also encouraged to look at reasons why complaints are being excluded from the complaints process to ensure people are not being unfairly denied an opportunity to have their complaint heard.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Why do officers think complaints numbers have increased/decreased? What is being done or can be done to address this?
• Do officers have sufficient resources to be able to respond to complaints?
• Do officers feel supported by the organisatiol when handling complaints?
• Are members of the public signposted to the Ombudsman when the organisation declines to accept their complaint? Has the Ombudsman told the organisation to accept a complaint that has previously been excluded and has the organisation changed its processes as a result of this feedback?

2. Timeliness

Timescales for responding to complaints set out in the Code are intended to encourage prompt and efficient complaint handling. These are not deadlines by which complaints must be responded to. Organisations should let complainants know when they need more time to consider a complaint and let them know in good time. Organisations should have good reasons for extending timescales for responding to a complaint. This could be because a complaint is particularly complex. It would not usually be acceptable to extend timescales for responding because the organisation lacked resources to respond promptly.

Each complaint should be dealt with proportionately. This means some may take up little officer time and receive a short response, whilst others may require a thorough investigation and a detailed response.

By scrutinising data on timeliness of complaint responses, the Member can consider whether the organisation has sufficient resources in place to respond to complaints promptly and whether the organisation is taking a proportionate approach to considering complaints, so it focuses its resources on complaints which have the most impact on individuals and the wider public.

The average time for responding to complaints should indicate how often the organisation is responding promptly to complaints. We have suggested this is reported as an overall % of total complaints handled at stage 1 and stage 2 but organisations may choose to break this down further to provide context.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Is there a difference in the % of complaints responded to in time at stage 1 compared to stage 2?
• What is the average time for responding to complaints at stage 1 and stage 2?
• Is there a reason why the proportion of complaints responded to in time has increased/ decreased? 
• Are there differences in performance between different services? Are there particular services where response times are longer/ shorter? Are there any concerns about how individual services deal with complaints or how quickly they share information with complaint handlers?
• Do officers have sufficient resources to be able to respond to complaints across all services?

3. Outcomes

The outcomes of complaints are an important measure of the quality of complaint handling in an organisation and data can be used to identify areas where repeat findings may indicate wider issues which need to be addressed.

Outcomes are separated into four categories to support transparency and openness.

• Upheld: The organisation has accepted it was at fault in all or most areas raised by the complainant or it only identified a small number of errors or technical faults but these had a significant adverse impact on the complainant or the wider public.
• Partially upheld: The organisation found it acted without fault in most areas raised by the complainant. However, it identified a small number of errors or technical faults and these had very little impact on the complainant or the wider public.
• Not upheld: The organisation found it acted without fault in all areas raised by the complainant.
• Resolved: The organisation was able to agree action it should take with the complainant to resolve the complaint and did not have to investigate further to decide whether it acted with fault.

Allowing organisations to record complaints as “resolved” supports prompt proportionate responses to complaints. Where appropriate, organisations may be able to take action to resolve complaints without the need for a detailed investigation. This benefits both the organisation and the complainant. However, organisations should not seek to provide people services they are not entitled to in order to resolve complaints.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Are there differences in performance between different services?
• Which services have the highest uphold rate?
• Are there any noticeable trends in which complaints are being upheld? Is action being taken to address the underlying cause of these complaints?
• What quality monitoring does the organisation carry out to check the quality of complaint responses and that outcomes are recorded appropriately?
• How often does a stage 2 investigation change the decision reason at stage 1?
• How often does the Ombudsman reach a different view on complaints we have dealt with?

4. Learning from complaints and remedies

The resolution of complaints is an important measure of the organisation’s willingness and ability to put things right.

Understanding how frequently this happens as well as the types of complaints where remedies are provided also gives insight into the impact of failings on individuals and the wider public. Remedies should be provided within timescales provided to complainants. Failure to do this may lead to further complaints and a decrease in the level of trust between the individual and the organisation.

Details of service improvements made as a result of learning from complaints is also an important indicator of the culture of an organisation. Organisations who learn from complaints, even where a complaint is not upheld, are more likely to have a wider culture of openness and transparency which aids good governance.

Service improvements are difficult to quantify. Therefore organisations are encouraged to provide qualitative data summarising the types of service improvements achieved as a result of learning from complaints. This may include learning from complaints data as well as individual complaints. If a particular service area has not recorded any service improvements this may warrant further scrutiny.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Are there differences in the proportion of remedies provided by different services?
• Which services provide the highest proportion of remedies?
• Are there any noticeable trends in which complaints are being remedied? Is action being taken to address the underlying cause of these complaints?
• What quality monitoring does the organisation carry out to check the quality of remedies offered?
• How often are remedies delivered outside timescales given to complainants?
• Has there been any decrease in complaints received or upheld complaints since service improvements were made?

Ombudsman decisions and data

Organisations should present information about KPIs alongside a summary of decisions made by the Ombudsman about the organisation.

Monitoring Officers in local authorities also have a legal duty to report our findings of maladministration to elected officials. We believe this duty may be discharged by the Member responsible for complaints receiving periodic updates on decisions the Ombudsman has upheld. You can find out more about this in our Manual for Councils.

Members are encouraged to look closely at decisions the Ombudsman has upheld. These highlight circumstances where an opportunity was missed to address a complaint through the organisation’s processes or they may provide confirmation that the remedy the organisation provided was considered suitable by the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman makes individual data available about a local authority’s performance each year. This should be included in the authority’s annual report along with any comments the Ombudsman has made about the organisation’s performance.

All local authorities have a nominated link officer who is the point of contact with the organisation for the Ombudsman. The link officer is responsible for ensuring the organisation responds efficiently to the Ombudsman’s enquiries and decisions. You can find out more about the role of the link officer in our Manual for Councils.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Does the organisation review upheld complaints by the Ombudsman to see if there were opportunities to resolve the complaint locally?
• What feedback does the organisation provide to services about Ombudsman decisions?
• Does the organisation share good practice guides issued by the Ombudsman with relevant services and more widely where appropriate?
• Is the organisation’s link officer supported to respond efficiently to the Ombudsman’s enquiries and decisions?
• Has the organisation received any feedback from the Ombudsman about how it engages with the Ombudsman’s investigations?

Equality monitoring data

Organisations should collect data on the protected characteristics of people who complain. This should be collected at the point the person first raises a complaint but should not be made available except for statistical analysis. By analysing data collected, organisations can assess whether complaint systems are equitable and fair and whether they disproportionately affect different groups.

Some possible questions for scrutiny include:

• Are there any groups underrepresented in raising complaints with us compared to the local population?
• Is there any reason why this is the case?
• Is the organisation undertaking any work to engage with those groups?

Scrutiny of statutory complaints

It is considered good practice for the Member Responsible for Complaints to have access to performance data about all complaints received by the organisation, even complaints not covered by the Code, such as those about adult social care and children’s services. This provides the Member with an overview of complaint handling performance across the organisation.

We believe data about adult social care and children’s services complains in particular should be reported alongside the recommended KPIs set out above. This complaint data should also be shared regularly with elected officials responsible for overseeing those services.