Was information handled and processed correctly?

• Where we cannot share specific evidence and this has been correctly recording, labelled and placed in DND, answer yes
• If there is non- disclosable information in N&A such as legal advice, has it been correctly marked as DND?
• Have we redacted correctly?
• If there is a Rep or joint PA, did we get consent to share?
• Has there been a data breach or is there a risk of a data breach in the way we have handled and processed the information?
• Have we responded appropriately to a 32(3) notice, was it issued appropriately and if not, did we challenge this?
• Did we appropriately consider any request to share additional information, beyond that on which decision was based?
• Have we ensured no one is identifiable in the decision statement, this includes third parties and other bodies? Advice on when we can name individuals or organisations is in the SOR Manual
• NB If no information was shared with PA, and all other standards were met, then we should answer ‘Yes’ to this question

Are you satisfied with the service the investigator gave to the complainant and the BinJ, including whether they explored, recorded and acted on any reasonable adjustments?

• Did we make an initial phone call? If not, have we recorded their reasons why in N&A? We will not usually make a call in Assessment, but must still record our reason for not calling in N&A.
• Were we professional and courteous in our communication?
• Have we explored, documented and acted on any RA? Have we written to the complainant to set out what RA we have agreed?
• Did we deal appropriately with any challenging behaviour displayed by the complainant or BinJ? Where appropriate, has this been referred to a manager in line our with our policy?
• Did the investigator demonstrate impartiality and professionalism in written communication? (e.g. no first name terms with BinJ in written correspondence as this can give an impression of bias)
• Have we signposted to other organisations where appropriate?
• Are there examples of excellent practice or service?

Was the case progressed in a timely way, without undue delay?

• Did we KIT appropriately, including with the BinJ, at least every 20 working days (repeated KITs without good reason is not acceptable)?
• Is there evidence of substantive action at least every eight weeks at the Investigation stage? The Investigation Manual says we will consider there to have been delay if there was more than eight weeks since the last substantive action on the case. For Assessment reviews, is there evidence of substantive action at least every four weeks at the Assessment stage?
• Has there been any delay by the BinJ and if so, have we chased up appropriately and recorded it in the BinJ information screen?
• Has the case become stuck? If so, is there evidence the investigator sought appropriate advice and support from their manager.

Has ECHO been used correctly to record the case?

• Is the category and subcategory correct, including the Equality Act and/or Human Rights Act if relevant?
• Have Workflow screens been completed correctly?
• Has the decision been recorded correctly?
• Does the decision on ECHO match the reasons in the decision statement?
• In part 3A cases, where recommendations not accepted or not yet implemented has the SOCR screen been completed correctly?
• Have key documents been renamed appropriately?
• Have folders been used correctly e.g., correct decision documents in the decision folder, and only one document in the statement for publication folder?
• Was the RA screen completed correctly in ECHO?
• If we have decided the case is not for publication, is the publication screen completed by a manager giving valid reasons why?
• Were Ofsted, CQC notified, as appropriate?
• Was the BinJ information screen completed, where relevant, and did it take account of our complaint handling code?

Has N&A been used in an effective and proportionate manner?

• Does the N&A set out how we considered areas of discretion and have we considered it fairly? This may not be necessary if it is clear in the decision statement.
• If documents are held outside of ECHO on the k:drive or in paper copies, is there a note in N&A?
• Have telephone calls been properly documented?
• Was the length of N&A proportionate
• Were there inappropriate comments in N&A?

Was the complaint properly understood?

• Has the investigator properly summarised the complaint, including identifying parts we will and will not investigate?
• Has there been an adequate exploration of injustice and is injustice set out in the statement for complaint? Note, where we decide not to investigate a complaint and where claimed injustice is not relevant to us making this decision then the statement does not need to refer to claimed injustice.
• Has there been proper consideration of jurisdiction, including, where relevant, why we decided not to exercise discretion?
• If s26B is relevant, has this been considered correctly, in line with the guidance on jurisdiction?

Has the investigator gathered enough evidence to either a) forward to investigation or b) reach a reasonable conclusion on the complaint?

• Does the enquiry letter show focused and targeted questioning?
• Where evidence is not provided to support a key or disputed assertion, has the investigator asked for it?
• Has the investigator challenged evidence and unsupported views as appropriate?
• Was the investigation proportionate? Was there evidence of over-investigation?
• Has the investigator taken account of service improvement data and/or BinJ information data as part of decision-making?
• Has the investigator considered using our s26D/34E power, where relevant?

Was the conclusion reached on the complaint defensible?

• NB: If the decision was defensible, but the SOR did not meet written standards then we should mark this as ‘Partial’
• Does the decision come to findings against standards such as the good administrative practice, the BinJ policy, statutory guidance or law?
• Did we make clear evidence-based findings?
• Does the conclusion flow from the evidence?
• Has the relevant law and guidance been applied correctly, including the guidance on jurisdiction, and other internal subject guidance?
• Have we used the correct standard paragraphs to set out our powers for the case, especially in the Ombudsman’s powers section?
• Do the conclusions, including remedy recommendations, fit the evidence?
• Does the decision statement meet the required written standards as set out in the Statement of Reasons Manual and our House Style guidance?
• Is the decision reasonable and defensible?
• As part of our review, did we need to make any substantive amendments to the decision statement? If we did, this standard should be marked as ‘No’
• Is the decision statement proportionate to the facts and findings?

Were draft responses properly considered and responded to?

• Where relevant, is there evidence of an amendment to the decision statement, a narrative in the cover letter or a telephone discussion with the complainant?
• Does the N&A, FD cover letter, or a separate document on ECHO, set out a summary of our views on the draft decision comments?
• If the recommended remedy changed between a first draft and the final decision, do we have a clear rationale recorded for this in N&A? Were the relevant parties informed and given a chance to comment, or a revised draft decision issued?
• If the review is for an Assessment case issued without a draft decision, mark this question as Yes.

Where applicable, has the remedies screen been completed properly and are the recommendations SMART?

• Does it meet our Guidance on remedies?
• If appropriate, have we recommended an apology?
• Have we referred appropriately to the guidance in our decision statement?
• Has the remedy screen been completed correctly, including the remedy category, and a task assigned to the TC?
• Should we have made service improvements, or have we explained why we have not in those cases where the BinJ has already agreed to do so on other cases?
• Are any service improvements written as a ‘standalone’ suitable for website?
• Do the service improvements focus on the root cause of the fault?
• Are the timescales set realistic and appropriate?

General comments

• Was there a delay sending the case through for review?
• Was the PDR information form helpful?
• Was the decision correctly formatted and if not, could it cause issues when published on the website? Please see the document “Decision statements - errors in formatting that stop correct publication” as a guide
• Is there any other positive feedback to give?