Agenda item

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Sartin, introduced their report on the review of the Council’s complaints scheme. It was noted that council current scheme had four stages. The investigation of a complaint at each stage was undertaken by the following:

Step 1 - Manager of the service area concerned.

For example: Benefits Manager; Housing Options Manager, Principal Planning Officer, Waste Manager.

Step 2 - Director, or more usually, an Asst. Director.

Step 3 - Complaints Officer on behalf of the Director of Governance (responsible for the Compliments and Complaints scheme) and the Chief Executive.

Step 4 - Member Complaints Panel

The Local Government Ombudsman has previously expressed surprise that EFDC had a four stage complaints procedure. No other Councils in Essex, and virtually no other Councils across the country, have as many stages or offer a final review by Members.

However, the last step 4 review was some years ago and over time had been rarely used.

In 2006, the Local Government Ombudsman introduced what has become known as the 12 week rule.

The Ombudsman takes the view that Councils should be able to complete every stage in their own complaints procedure within 12 weeks of their first receipt of the complaint. If a Council was unable to do so, the complainant has the right to bypass any remaining stages in the Council’s complaints procedure and instead take their complaint to the Ombudsman.

However, the current design of EFDC’s complaints procedure made it impossible to complete all four stages within 12 weeks for the following reasons.

Investigations at Steps 1, 2 and 3 usually each take around 3 - 4 weeks to complete. So, by the time a Step 3 review has been completed, the 12 week time limit was already fast approaching. But if a complainant remains dissatisfied and requests a further review, it takes a further 7 - 8 weeks to organise a meeting of the Step 4 Member Complaints Panel.

It has therefore become routine that complainants have to be advised that, because it will not be possible to offer them a Step 4 review within the 12 week time limit, they now have the right to bypass Step 4 and instead take their complaint to the Ombudsman.

If members agree to the removal of the Step 4 Panel, consequential amendments will be required of the Constitution.  It was therefore appropriate that this was reported to full Council at its April 2015 meeting in order that changes can be taken into account by the Appointments Panel in May 2015.

Councillor Murray noted that another option would be not to change the procedure as he thought that complainants should have a choice to either go to the ombudsman or to a member panel. This would look like we were taking their rights away.

Councillor Wixley noted that he had chaired a Complaints Panel in 2010 and Mr Hill noted that there had been one other in 2012. The last Complaints Panel meeting before 2010 had been held in 2007.

Councillor Murray said that some residents put a lot of faith in their local councillors and a Complaint Panel would seem to be fair. Councillor Surtees did not agree with Councillor Murray. It was officers who dealt with stages 1, 2 and 3, dealing with this for the Council and as part of the Council. If a resident wanted to take it further then it would be better to take it to an independent body and not just a further stage in the Council’s process.

Councillor Philips noted that at stage 3 there would be a lot of interaction with the residents by the complaints officer, who would make the complainant feel that they had been listened to and this was a positive.

Councillor Sartin had sympathy with Councillor Murray’s point of view, but the ombudsman had set these time limits and she stood by the recommendations put forward.

RESOLVED:

That a report be made to Council recommending:

(1)        That Step 4 reviews of complaints by the Member Complaints Panel be discontinued; and that:

(i)         The provisions relating to the Complaints Panel contained within the Constitution be removed; and

(ii)        The Appointments Panel be advised that nominations to the Complaints Panel will no longer be required.