This report includes information from complaints about public bodies made to my Office in 2010-11, as well as individual case histories of failures by public bodies experienced by members of the public and resolved by us during the year. It also includes the results of a survey we conducted into the different processes used by government departments and public bodies to respond to complaints.

Disappointingly, this report reveals complaint handling across government to be inconsistent, haphazard and unaccountable, operating without any overarching design, overall standards or common performance framework. Such a situation is unhelpful for people who want to change their experience of interacting with a public service by making a complaint. It also means opportunities to improve public services through complaint handling are being missed.

‘Public bodies should ensure their complaints procedure is simple and clear, involving as few steps as possible.’
Principles of Good Complaint Handling

It is clear from the information in this report, and the evidence from our casework generally, that if a member of the public wants to complain about the service they receive, they must embark on a system for complaining that is unique to that department.

I am not advocating a ‘one-size fits all’ system for handling complaints about government departments and other public bodies. Such an approach would preclude flexible processes, designed to be relevant and accessible to the needs of their different customers. But there is no shared view across government of the standard of complaint handling that a member of the public can reasonably expect.

Our survey of government complaint handling revealed a plethora of different systems for handling complaints. The government departments and public bodies who responded to our survey required complainants to navigate anything between one and four stages of a complaint procedure before ‘local resolution’ was completed and the complainant could bring their complaint to the Ombudsman. Unfortunately for both the complainant and the public purse, the value added by these multiple stages can be difficult to detect. The stories in this report bring such examples into the spotlight. They show the toll that overly-bureaucratic complaints procedures can take on individuals.

‘Public bodies should have systems to record, analyse and report on the learning from complaints – and ensure that all feedback and lessons learnt from complaints contribute to service improvement.’
Principles of Good Complaint Handling

The cost of maladministration is borne by the public, collectively and individually. As this report shows, last year we secured over £360,000 in direct financial remedies for complainants as a result of poor administration or complaint handling. This figure does not reveal the cost in time and resource taken up by lengthy and protracted complaints systems or the sometimes devastating human cost of the failure to put things right for individuals. Nor does it include the cost of lost opportunities to improve public services by learning from feedback that is free to collect and readily available.

The figure also excludes the £1.5 billion which in October 2010 the Government announced would be available to compensate Equitable Life policyholders, following its agreement earlier in the year to implement the recommendation in my July 2008 report on regulatory failure.

‘Learning from complaints is a powerful way of helping to improve public service, enhancing the reputation of a public body and increasing trust among the people who use its service.’
Principles of Good Complaint Handling

The absence of any clear methodology or machinery to share best practice, or ensure lessons from complaints are learnt across government departments, increases the likelihood of the same mistakes being repeated again and again.

In terms of measuring and improving performance, departmental complaint handling is not subject to any systematic external audit or similar scrutiny. As Ombudsman I consider complaints that reach my Office, but I do not have the legal power to undertake systemic scrutiny on my own initiative. So I do not have the mandate or the mechanisms to provide assurance on complaint handling efficiency and effectiveness across government. Neither does anyone else.

Complaints are a lens through which to judge the quality of public services. They provide insight and learning, often not available elsewhere, about the efficiency of public services and the fairness and proportionality with which they are administered. Above all, complaints provide an insight into the public’s interactions with the state. At the moment, this perspective is blurred by inconsistent and sometimes convoluted processes, and an absence of cross-government information and accountability that makes complaints invisible at national level.

To counter this, there needs to be a shared understanding between the public, government and the Ombudsman about what constitutes good complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Complaint Handling are a good starting point for government in the task of ensuring that all departments share an understanding of the importance of fairness, transparency, and accountability. But this will not evolve further without strong leadership from the top, committed to developing a culture across the civil service that values complaints. I hope that this report provides an impetus towards making this happen.

Ann Abraham
Parliamentary Ombudsman
October 2011