Arrangements for complaints

“Where an organisation’s complaint response is handled by a third party (e.g. a contractor) or independent adjudicator at any stage, it should form part of the two stage complaints process set out in this Code. Individuals should not be expected to go through two complaints processes.”

(Paragraph 6.21 of the Complaint Handling Code)

Where complaint handling is managed by a third-party provider under the contractual agreement it should:

• be consistent with the Code or relevant statutory complaints process.

• reflect the nature of the contract. For example, a national company providing leisure services may have resources to manage its own complaints procedures, but a smaller, local business may not.

• include clear agreement on how the organisation or the third-party provider will handle a complaint regardless of which of them receives it. This should explain:  

  • who is responsible for telling complainants about the arrangements and when; 

  • who will be responsible for responding to the complaint, and what procedure to use; and

  • how complaints will be passed between each party. For example, if a complaint is raised with the commissioning organisation, but contractual arrangements require a response from the third-party provider, the organisation should pass details of the complaint to the provider.

• require regular reporting of complaint data including complaint numbers, outcomes, learning and improvements. Organisations should also consider carrying out periodic reviews of a random sample of the third-party provider’s complaint responses. 

It may not be practical for services to alert the commissioning organisation every time a third-party provider receives and resolves a complaint to the complainant’s satisfaction. However, the number of complaints received, and outcomes should form part of regular contract management and oversight arrangements. 

For complaints covered by the Complaint Handling Code, organisations should decide whether they are happy for third-party providers to signpost complainants to them at the end of stage 1 or whether the provider can also deal with complaints at stage 2 and signpost complainants directly to the Ombudsman. It is for each organisation to decide which approach works best and arrangements may vary between providers. However, complainants should not have to navigate more than two stages in total before being able to raise a complaint with the Ombudsman.

Organisations should consider how complaints about third-party providers might be best managed under statutory complaints processes for adult social care and children’s services. Arrangements may vary between organisations, but complainants should not have to navigate processes outside of those set out in the relevant regulations. 

There may be occasions where the organisation decides to accept a complaint directly without referring it to the third-party provider. This may be due to delays in the provider providing a response or wider risk factors. Organisations should consider the following when deciding whether to address the complaint directly: 

• the seriousness of the issues raised;
• the impact on the person complaining or others; and
• the wider impact of any potential faults.

Once a complainant has been signposted to the Ombudsman we consider this to be the organisation’s final response, even if the decision has been issued by a third-party provider acting on its behalf. Therefore, it is important organisations set clear expectations for providers about circumstances in which complaints should be escalated to the organisation.