Principles of Good Complaint Handling: Response to Consultation
Consultation began: 12 May 2008
Consultation closed: 12 August 2008
Response Published: 28 November 2008
Introduction
This is the report on the consultation which sought views on our draft Principles of Good Complaint Handling. It covers:the background to the Principles:
a summary of comments; and
conclusion
Background
On 12 May 2008 we published our draft Principles of Good Complaint Handling for consultation. The consultation ended on 12 August 2008.
The Principles are broad statements of how we believe bodies within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, including NHS providers, should handle complaints about the service received by their customers, members of the public or other client organisations. The Principles of Good Complaint Handling follow from the Ombudsman's previous publications, Principles of Good Administration (March 2007) and Principles for Remedy (October 2007) and should be read in conjunction with them.
Our objective in producing the Principles was to help public bodies, including NHS providers and complainants, understand what we mean by good complaint handling. Promoting good complaint handling by public bodies is a key part of our work. The Principles also set out the approach PHSO will take when considering standards of complaint handling by public bodies. The Principles are based on the experiences of this office in considering complaint handling for over forty years. The Principles are not a detailed checklist to be applied mechanically, but rather a broad framework to have in mind when considering complaints. We understand that the public bodies within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction are many and varied and accordingly the systems that public bodies have in place for handling complaints will depend on their own circumstances.
The Principles of Good Complaint Handling therefore set out the kinds of behaviour and standards the Ombudsman expects from public bodies when dealing with complaints and are intended to help public bodies deliver first class complaint handling to their customers.
Summary of Responses
A total of 140 substantive responses to the consultation were received and a full list of those responding can be found here.
A wide range of organisations responded including bodies within jurisdiction, advice sector groups, national and international Ombudsmen, professional bodies and NHS providers.
We are pleased to say that all respondents positively welcomed the draft Principles and most believed they would act as a working guide to complaint handling or form a basis from which to develop their own guidance. Many respondents confirmed that their own complaints procedures already conformed to the Principles and provided us with examples from their complaints practice.
'We fully support the current framework for the principles and are pleased that your office has issued this guidance. We believe this adds value and complements both the Principles of Good Administration and Principles for Remedy already issued by your office. … these principles can be used as an excellent evaluation tool. Our Complaints Review Service, which handles all corporate complaints about the Commission, will be looking at ways to incorporate these principles into its triaging activity.'
Commission for Social Care Inspection
Some respondents offered views on all of the issues in the draft Principles; others focused on particular areas. The comments below do not include the detailed drafting suggestions we received but instead summarise responses to the four questions asked, and highlight the general themes and comments which emerged.
Our consultation asked four main questions:
Are these Principles written in a way that is relevant and helpful to your work?
Most respondents found the Principles helpful and applicable to their work. Many respondents confirmed that their organisations handled complaints in a manner that conformed to the broad outlines of the Principles. Some said that they would use the Principles as a benchmark from which to assess their own complaints regimes.
' You may be interested to know that my office's internal auditors will be reviewing our own internal processes against the Principles, as we did against the earlier sets of Principles …. Thereafter, the review will be built into our regular review timetable' Independent Case Examiner .
- Are there any words or terms that are unclear?
On the whole respondents found the words and terms used in the document clear and easy to understand. In addition, we have had the final document reviewed by the Plain Language Commission to ensure the whole document was clear and unambiguous.
Should anything else be included?
Some respondents suggested that we should include specific mention of 'listening' to complainants and managing complainants' expectations. It was also suggested that we emphasise that information should be provided in different formats and languages to meet the needs of audiences with specific requirements. We amended the Principles to reflect these points.
Some respondents also raised the issue of timescales and suggested that we should be more specific about the standards we expect. We amended the Principles to emphasise the importance of timeliness and to state more clearly that public bodies should publish clear, accurate and complete information about how to complain, and how and when to take complaints further. However, we deliberately did not want to be more specific about timescales; bodies within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction are varied and it is up to each organisation to decide on their own service standards. These Principles are intended to be set at a high level and are not meant to be prescriptive.
- Is the supporting text useful and is it helpful to have the final Principles presented in this way?
The majority of respondents thought the layout worked well and that supporting text was useful and expanded each Principle in a comprehensible manner. We have therefore decided to retain the original format of the Principles with the Introduction followed by the six Principles and their supporting text.
Other comments
Some respondents commented that they thought we had underplayed the importance of having proper procedures in place in Principle 1. We agreed that the Principles would benefit from a clearer explanation of our meaning here and we edited the text to make the point that while complaint handling should focus on the outcome for the complainant and, where appropriate, others affected, public bodies should put in place policies and procedures to ensure complainants are treated fairly, to aid decision-making and to ensure fair outcomes. Those policies and procedures should allow staff the flexibility to resolve complaints promptly and in the most appropriate way, while still learning from complaints.
Some respondents remarked on Principle 4 where we state that complaints should be reviewed by someone not involved in the events leading to the complaint. They felt that this approach may not always be necessary or appropriate as it was important to allow the official originally involved in the complaint to have the chance to remedy the complaint quickly and effectively. We understand the value of dealing with complaints as quickly as possible, but consider that it is a key principle that public bodies ask a member of staff who was not involved in the events leading to the complaint to review the case. We do not consider that this prevents the public body from putting things right quickly for the complainant where appropriate.
The issue of providing financial remedy was a key theme for two groups of respondents. Organisations which deal with and provide funds and grants to other organisations rather than individuals, queried how they would provide financial remedy to organisations. We consider that the same key principles should apply whether financial remedy is being provided to an individual or an organisation. Each case must be considered on its own merits. We amended the introduction to make it clear that sometimes complainants will be individuals and sometimes organisations. Accordingly, the systems that public bodies have in place for handling complaints will depend on their own circumstances, but the Principles of Good Complaint handling should be common to all.
Many NHS providers also raised the issue of financial remedy. Their concern was two fold; first, they compared the Ombudsman's Principles with the NHS and the NHS Litigation Authority guidelines on remedy, and second, they requested more explicit guidance on how they should determine levels of financial remedy, such as a methodology for making calculations.
We want to emphasise that we do not view NHS bodies any differently from other public bodies when it comes to considering how they approach remedy. Indeed the Department of Health recently confirmed to us that NHS bodies are now required by the NHS Finance Manual to report the extent to which they have adopted the Principles for Remedy and how the Principles form part of the public body's complaints handling procedure.
However, we understand that the payment of financial compensation is possibly less well established in the NHS as a remedy than in other parts of the public sector. We are therefore working closely with the Department of Health and the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) to make things clearer for NHS bodies. As noted above, the NHS Finance Manual has been edited to reflect the Ombudsman's approach to remedy and the Ombudsman will be discussing with the NHSLA the best way of setting out clearly for NHS bodies the respective positions of the NHSLA and the Ombudsman with regard to financial remedy.
We did not consider it appropriate to amend the Principles to include more specific guidelines on how to calculate appropriate levels of financial compensation. We do not recommend using any sort of tariff to work out levels of payment. Our view is that using a tariff can be too constraining for an organisation and restricts staff when considering remedies. In some cases the remedy will be easy to work out; in others, it will be more difficult because of the number of factors to take into account. The Ombudsman cannot therefore be more prescriptive in terms of the guidance on financial remedy.
Conclusion
We are grateful to everyone who responded; indeed all the responses have informed the development of our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. We published the Principles on 28 November 2008 and they can be found here.
1 Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council
2 Adjudicator for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Mills, Barbara QC,
3 Audit Commission
4 Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust
5 Big Lottery Fund
6 Birmingham City Council
7 Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust
8 Bolton NHS Trust
9 Brock, Arlene , Ombudsman for Bermuda
10 Bury PCT
11 Cabinet Office
12 Campbell, Ronnie MP
13 Child Support Agency
14 Commission for Social Care Inspection
15 Consumer Council for Water
16 Coventry Teaching PCT
17 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
18 Criminal Records Bureau Complaints Mediator
19 Cunningham, Jim MP
20 Darlington NHS Primary Care Trust
21 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
22 Department for Children, Schools and Families
23 Department for International Development
24 Department for Works and Pensions, ICE-PHSO Focal Point
25 Department of Health, Public Health Performance and Delivery
26 Dismore, Andrew MP, Chair of Joint Committee on Human Rights
27 East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust
28 East Riding Council
29 Environment Agency
30 Ery Primary Care Trust, Walker, Sarah, Risk, Complaints & PALS Manager
31 First Civil Service Commissioner
32 Food Standards Agency
33 Gale, Roger MP
34 Garda Siochana Complaints Board
35 General Medical Council
36 General Practitioners Committee
37 Gilroy, Linda MP
38 Halliday, John, External Reviewer of PHSO Complaints
39 Hamilton, Sir Nigel , Permanent Secretary, Stormont
40 Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust, PALS & Consumer Affairs,
41 Healthcare Commission
42 Heritage Lottery Fund
43 Hillingdon NHS PCT
44 HM Prisons & Immigration Removal Centres
45 HM Revenue & Customs
46 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
47 Independent Case Examiner
48 Independent Complaints Advocacy Service
49 Independent Complaints Reviewer
50 Information Commissioner's Office
51 International Ombudsman Institute, Chairman of the Parliamentary Austrian Ombudsman Board, European Region
52 Judicial Appointments Commission
53 Keetch, Paul MP
54 Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust
55 Legal Services Commission
56 Letwin, Oliver MP
57 Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust
58 Liverpool City Council, Adult Care and Learning Services,
59 London School of Economics, Law Department
60 Lord Justice Sedley
61 Luton Primary Care Trust
62 McCracken, Justin, Chief Executive, Health Protection Agency
63 Medical Protection Society and Dental Protection Limited
64 Mencap
65 Mersey Care NHS Trust
66 Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust
67 Ministry of Defence
68 National Audit Office
69 National Clinical Assessment Service, National Patient Safety Agency
70 National Complaint Managers Group (Local Councils)
71 National Patient Safety Agency
72 Naysmith, Dr Doug MP, Labour / Co–Op Member for Bristol
North West
73 Newham Primary Care Trust
74 NHS Norfolk
75 North Bristol NHS Trust
76 North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
77 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
78 Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Trust
79 Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust
80 Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (NI)
81 Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman
82 Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
83 PHSO Staff
84 POhWER Paul Standbrook, ICAS
85 POhWER, ICAS, North Hertfordshire Team
86 Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
87 Portsmouth City Teaching Primary Care Trust
88 Public Administration Select Committee
89 Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
90 Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup NHS Trust
91 Retford Hospital, Bassetlaw Primary Care Trust
92 Richmond & Twickenham Primary Care Trust
93 Royal Berkshire Hospital, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
94 Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust
95 Royal College of Midwives
96 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
97 Royal College of Surgeons, Patient Liaison Group
98 Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust
99 Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust
100 Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
101 Seabeck, Alison MP
102 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust
103 Short, June
104 Social Fund Commissioner
105 Social Security Agency ( Northern Ireland)
106 Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
107 South West Strategic Health Authority
108 Southampton, University Hospitals NHS Trust
109 Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
110 Speers, Dee
111 Sport England
112 St George's Hospital, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
113 Stewart, Sir William, Chairman, Health Protection Agency
114 Surrey Primary Care Trust
115 Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
116 Taylor, Hugh Permanent Secretary, Department of Health
117 The East of England Development Agency
118 The Insolvency Service
119 The Land Registry
120 The National Archive
121 The Planning Inspectorate
122 The Removals Industry Ombudsman Scheme
123 The Royal College of Radiologists
124 The Rt Hon Lord Woolf
125 UK Border Agency
126 UK Sports Council
127 University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust
128 University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
129 University of Hull, Law Department
130 Valuation Office Agency
131 Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
132 Welsh Assembly Government, Morgan, Dame Gill, DBE, Permanent Secretary ,
133 Welsh Committee of the Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council
134 West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
135 Weston Area Health NHS Trust
136 Which?
137 Wildsmith, Chris
138 Wolverhampton City Primary Care Trust
139 Woods, Fiona
140 Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
