Obtaining evidence of compliance and quality assurance

Team Co-ordinators are responsible for obtaining and recording evidence of compliance with recommendations. They also help ensure the remedy screen is completed properly. This is a vital part of our quality assurance process, to ensure the information we publish about remedies is accurate and easy to understand.   

When the Investigator reassigns a remedy due task to their Team Co-ordinator, the Team Co-ordinator should check the remedy screen to ensure it is clear:

• what the Investigator has recommended;
• when we expect compliance with any specific parts of the recommendations; and
• what evidence we expect from the body in jurisdiction to demonstrate compliance with the recommendations.

The Team Co-ordinator will also correct any cases where:

• the Investigator has not selected the correct remedy category/categories; and
• the service improvement summary/summaries are unfit for publication.

The Team Co-ordinator should speak with their manager if they find Investigators repeatedly fail to complete the remedies screen correctly.   

It is also important to remember the Investigator may be on leave or may no longer work for the Ombudsman when the time comes to check compliance. It is therefore important for the Team Co-ordinator to check at an early stage if anything is unclear.

Cases with multiple deadlines

If there are multiple recommendations with different deadlines the Investigator should set separate tasks for each deadline. Where this has not happened, the Team Co-ordinator should set separate tasks to check after the body in jurisdiction has complied with the recommendations. The original ‘Remedy due’ task should always be for the part of the remedy with the longest due date.  

For example, a recommendation consists of:

• an immediate payment of £500 for six month’s delay;
• a reassessment of social care needs (due within one month); and
• a change to the council’s procedures for dealing with requests for reassessments (due in three months).

It would be generally right to check the body in jurisdiction has completed the reassessment and payment after a month, rather than after three months had passed for all items to be completed.

Recording compliance dates

When the body in jurisdiction provides evidence of compliance with all parts of our recommendations the Team Co-ordinator will enter the date into the ‘Due Date: Actual’ field on the ECHO Remedy Details screen.

If recommendations contain several actions with different compliance dates the team coordinator can note the date of compliance for individual parts in the ‘Remedy checking comments’ field on ECHO. However, the ‘Due Date: Actual’ field must only be completed when all aspect of the remedy are complete.

Compliance outcomes

The Team Co-ordinator must record an outcome to show whether or not we are satisfied with the actions of the body in jurisdiction. These are found in the drop-down list, titled ‘LGO satisfied with BinJ actions’.

Remedy satisfied on time

This should be used when the body in jurisdiction provides a satisfactory response to all aspects of our recommendations within the agreed time. This will generally be where it provides evidence it has carried out our recommendations. The relevant date is the date it complies with the recommendations (for example, the date on an apology letter) rather than the date it provides evidence to the Ombudsman. For payments, we would expect to see that the payment was made within the agreed time, rather than the Council sending a form to process a payment.

We should also record ‘Remedy satisfied on time’ where body in jurisdiction has offered to arrange the remedy in the agreed time but the complainant refuses to accept the remedy (for example, a fresh school admissions appeal or a new assessment of social care needs).

This category can also be used when a long-running remedy remains incomplete, but where we are satisfied the actions will be fulfilled (for example, where a council has agreed to update a policy but – for reasons it could not foresee – it is taking longer than we originally agreed).

Personal remedy late. Service improvement satisfied on time. 

This should be used where the body in jurisdiction does not provide a satisfactory response to the personal remedy within the agreed time, but where the service improvement aspects are on time. A remedy becomes late ‘late’ if the action takes place after the agreed date (for example, the date on an apology letter). It is not late simply because the Council sends us evidence after the agreed date. 

If there are multiple parts to the personal remedy, we should record a ‘late’ outcome if any part of the personal remedy is late. 

Service improvement late. Personal remedy satisfied on time

This should be used where the body in jurisdiction provides a satisfactory response to the personal remedy within the agreed time, but where the service improvement aspects are late. A remedy becomes late ‘late’ if the action takes place after the agreed date (for example, the date it provided training/updates to staff). It is not late simply because the Council sends us evidence after the agreed date. 

If there are multiple parts to the service improvement remedy, we should record a ‘late’ outcome if any part of the service improvement remedy is late. 

Remedy satisfied late (Personal remedy and service improvement late)

This should be used where the body in jurisdiction does not provides a satisfactory response to both the personal and service improvement parts of the remedy within the agreed time.

If there are multiple parts to the personal remedy and service improvement remedy, we should record a ‘late’ outcome if a single aspect of the personal remedy and a single aspect of the service improvement at late.

Remedy not complete and not satisfied

This should only be recorded after all attempts to chase for compliance has proved unsuccessful. If evidence of compliance is provided after this point, we might change the decision to the relevant ‘late’ An Assistant Ombudsman must be involved in a

Remedy completed late

This should be used where the body in jurisdiction provides satisfactory evidence of compliance, but where it failed to do so within the agreed time frame. The relevant date for recording ‘late’ remedies is when the remedy is implemented, after the agreed date (for example, the date on an apology letter). It is not based on the date we receive evidence of compliance.

Remedy not complete and not satisfied

This should only be recorded with the approval of the Director of Investigation, and after all attempts to chase for compliance has proved unsuccessful. If evidence of compliance is provided after this point, we might change the decision to ‘remedy completed late’. The Director of Investigation must be involved in a decision to record an outcome of Remedy not complete and not satisfied.

Requests from bodies in jurisdiction for extensions

A body in jurisdiction might ask for longer to implement a recommendation following our final decision. Investigators are responsible for dealing with such requests. We should bear in mind that delays in providing a remedy may cause additional injustice to the complainant, and/or delay necessary changes to the way services are delivered. However, we should also act fairly to bodies in jurisdiction which have faced unforeseen barriers to implementing a remedy, and which have shown good faith in acting on our recommendations.

It might be reasonable to agree a request in circumstances where:

• A body in jurisdiction proactively contacts before a remedy is due, with persuasive reasons why it cannot complete the remedy within the originally agreed time. Examples might include:
  • where it has not been possible to arrange a reassessment of a complainant’s social care needs, due to the complainant’s ill health.
  • where a review of a policy cannot take place, due to an unforeseen change in date of a committee or cabinet meeting;

Conversely we would be less likely to agree an extension where a body in jurisdiction asks for an extension after the agreed due date and/or where it cites general work load pressures as the reason for the delay, or where it has simply neglected to complete the agreed actions on time.

If an extension is agreed, the Investigator must notify the Team Co-ordinator, so the remedy due date is updated accordingly, and so we do not unnecessarily contact the body in jurisdiction about the remedy.

It should be remembered that ‘remedy complete late’ outcomes do not count negatively against a body in jurisdiction’s overall compliance rate (for the purpose of annual performance data). We record this data to monitor whether bodies in jurisdiction are repeatedly missing agreed deadlines. This is helpful for assessing the health of the body in jurisdiction, and identifying repeated patterns of delay. Therefore, we should only agree extensions as an exception, and remind bodies in jurisdiction they have an opportunity to comment on the deadlines as part of the draft decision process

Notifying the body in jurisdiction of compliance

The Team Co-ordinator should send a letter to the body in jurisdiction once a compliance outcome is recorded, to notify it of our decision on compliance. A template is included in the decision folder on ECHO titled ‘Remedy satisfaction letter to BinJ’.

Escalating non-compliance to Casework Managers

Chasing for evidence

If the body in jurisdiction has not provided evidence of compliance by the due date, the Team Co-ordinator will carry out the following actions:

If the body in jurisdiction request a further extension of time during this period, it should be discussed with the Casework Manager.

Team Co-ordinators should set a task for Casework Managers if it unclear whether a BinJ has provided satisfactory evidence of compliance.

Retaining evidence of compliance with service improvements 

Evidence of compliance with recommendations is destroyed as part of file management, 12 months following our decision. However, we can retain evidence of compliance with recommendations for five years where this information might help inform future investigations. 

At the start of each month, Assistant Ombudsmen will receive a report on decisions with service improvements relating to their geographically assigned teams. They will review the data to identify cases where there is a likely benefit in retaining evidence of compliance with service improvements for a five-year period. 

Assistant Ombudsmen should focus on the important minority of cases where a BinJ has agreed to make significant changes to the way it provides a service. Examples might include fundamental changes to policy or procedures, significant financial investment in a failing service, detailed action plans for improving services, and/or cases where we’ve achieved far-reaching remedies following 26D. 

The Assistant Ombudsman will set a task for the Team Coordinator who is chasing the remedy titled ‘Please retain service improvement compliance data’

When the evidence is received, the Team Coordinator will move the document(s) into the decision folder, so that it is exempt from the 12 month file management process.