Public interest reports

The power to publish a public report is one of the most important tools we have in our casework. 

• Reports can play an important part in remedying injustice for the individual, providing a sense of public vindication and closure when things have gone seriously wrong.
• Reports can be used to demonstrate how we increasingly use our powers to provide a remedy for many people from just one complaint.
• Reports drive wider improvement in public services, sharing systemic faults or landmark decisions for others to learn from.
• Reports contribute important evidence to public policy debates, giving a voice to the voiceless, by highlighting day-to-day injustices and service failures that our investigations expose.
• Reports are the single most important method of raising public awareness of our role and inform people of their right to an independent investigation of their case.
• Reports demonstrate to Parliament and to the public that we are playing our part in an open, democratic society by holding public bodies to account, where it is merited.

But, like any discretionary power, we must use it thoughtfully. And we must be able to demonstrate that we have applied consistent, rational criteria in deciding when to report. 

To achieve that, we have agreed six criteria. These do not represent an automatic trigger to report – each case should be considered individually if one or more of these factors is present:

1. Recurrent faults
2. Significant fault, injustice, or remedy (by scale or number of people affected)
3. Non-compliance with an Ombudsman’s recommendation
4. A high volume of complaints about one subject
5. A significant topical issue (such as those in raised our Focus Reports)
6. Systemic problems and/or wider lessons

We should keep these criteria in mind throughout the lifetime of each case. Sometimes the need for a report will be apparent from the start, on other occasions it might emerge later in the process. 

When we are minded to report, we need to ensure that we have a clear record of our thinking, based on the agreed criteria.  We also need to inform both parties at the earliest opportunity that we propose to report. There should be no surprises for anyone in this process.

The issues in criteria 4-6 may also warrant a Focus Report. The Ombudsman does not have to have been critical of a BinJ to issue a report. Where there is significant local concern about an issue the Ombudsman may issue a public interest report to allay those concerns.

All Investigators and Assistant Ombudsmen should take proactive steps to identify potential reports and report issues. See the Reports and Adverse Findings Notice Manual.

All Investigators may be expected to work on public interest reports, focus reports or other publications highlighting lessons from our work.

35.2 Publicising Part 3A decisions 

We do not have the powers to issue a public report on Part 3A cases. We can only issue an Adverse Findings Notice (AFN) when there has been non-compliance with implementing our recommendations. See the next section.

However, there will be Part 3A cases that raise important issues that we want to share for much the same reasons as we opt to report on Part 3 cases. We can do this using our normal decision statements.

For such cases, we want to enhance the work we put in to generate publicity so it more closely matches what we do for public reports. This usually involves developing a media strategy with a press release and offering spokespeople to the media for interviews. It may also include offering the person affected, or their representatives, the opportunity to take part in publicity.

The criteria for proposing a Part 3A case for such publicity are: 

1. Raises issues of significant interest/ learning relevant to other BinJs (such as other care providers/ councils/ others)
2. Significant fault, injustice or remedy
   As with public reports it is difficult to quantify what ‘significant’ means. For example, it could be a serious, high risk of repeated failure. It could be injustice to many residents. It could be a novel remedy that might be used elsewhere.
3. Raises awareness of our role in Part 3A complaints handling
4. High volume of complaints about the subject
5. Significant topical issue
   A list will be issued and then periodically reviewed alongside the Part 3 reports process
6. Systemic problems and/or wider lessons in both care provision and BinJ complaint handling

See the Reports and Adverse Findings Notice Manual for the full process on how to elect a decision for publicising.

35.3 Adverse Findings Notices

An Adverse Finding Notice under Part 3A of the LGA 74 is the equivalent of LGSCO issuing a statement of non-compliance under Part 3. The process of issuing an Adverse Findings Notice can be found in the Reports and Adverse Findings Notice Manual. 

See the flowchart for the reports process, with timescales on the Page resources tab of the Reports and Adverse Findings Notice Manual.

• When potential reports are identified, the Investigator/Assistant Ombudsman should set out on the ‘Report Proposal’ form or in Notes & Analysis the reasons for reporting and the Assistant Ombudsman should set a task for the Director of Investigation, who will consult with the Ombudsman. 
• Once a report is agreed, Investigators must take responsibility for meeting timescales, quality and accuracy of the report. There is a timetable for each stage in the process. Movement to the next internal stage is expected within 10 working days (15 working days for preparing the draft report).
• Investigators should draft the report with any help with formatting or proof reading from the Team Coordinator. The draft must include conclusions and recommendations.
• The draft must be approved for consultation with the complainant and BinJ (and others as necessary) by the Assistant Ombudsman and the Director of Investigation, who will consult with the Ombudsman as required.
• The Investigator should make any necessary amendments and ensure the report is publishable.
• The Assistant Ombudsman should agree the final report and pass for legal advice if necessary and then to Policy & Communications for final checks.
• The Director of Investigation will sign off the final report, in consultation with the Ombudsman as required.
• The Team Coordinator issues the report and tracks remedies after publication.
• The Assistant Ombudsman decides when the ‘satisfied’ letter should be issued to the BinJ