The responses revealed the differing approaches to handling complaints across a range of public bodies. The differences between them include the number of stages in the complaints process, the role and job titles of staff involved in responding to complaints, and the use of independent, or arms length, complaint handlers.

When we looked at the public bodies’ complaints processes more closely we found that they 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 us. Most of the public bodies with one stage had no dedicated complaints function and complaints were responded to by a general enquiry or correspondence team. Generally, each additional stage represented an escalation of the complaint within the public body where staff of increasing seniority looked at the complaint. Across all the government departments and public bodies we surveyed, there were people in over thirty different job roles who were involved in looking at complaints – from enquiry team members and complaints managers to directors, quality assurance managers and heads of business to chief executives, independent panels and chairs.

We discovered that in some cases there was little consistency between the complaints procedures of public bodies for which one government department was responsible. For example, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has a three stage complaints procedure, is responsible for both the Insolvency Service, which has a four stage complaints procedure, and the Skills Funding Agency, whose complaints procedure is just one stage. Only two of the government departments that responded to our survey said they had, or were developing, specific complaints guidance for their public bodies, and only one other used meetings and other actions to help ensure consistency in complaint handling across all the public bodies they were responsible for. In some cases, complaints procedures can be further complicated by conditions being placed on whether a stage of the complaints procedure can be accessed. Several public bodies do this including Cafcass, the Charity Commission and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). Often, complainants are not aware that their access to the next stage of a complaints procedure can be conditional.

For 28 public bodies who responded to our survey, the last stage of their complaints procedure is a review by an arms length complaint handler, contracted by the public body to provide an independent view. Thirteen different arms length complaints handlers were being used by the public bodies who responded to our survey. They have different criteria and access arrangements, and only two departments appeared to have a consistent approach whereby all the public bodies they were responsible for used the same  arms length complaint handler in the same way.

We asked government departments why they, or their public bodies, used arms length complaint handlers. Most told us that an arms length complaint handler is trusted by customers to be impartial, even handed and to offer a detailed review of the complaint. Government departments also told us that arms length complaint handlers were able to act as a critical friend and provide useful feedback and learning. One government department told us that being able to learn from complaints in this way makes good economic sense.

In contrast, most of the government departments that did not engage an arms length complaint handler told us that to do so would not be an effective use of funds. Some of them pointed out that this was because they received low numbers of complaints. This was often because they did not provide a service directly to the public. Others said that they were satisfied with their ability to review each complaint themselves and that there were few requests for complaints to  be escalated.

The systems that public bodies have in place for handling complaints will depend on their own circumstances. However, certain principles should be common across government, including keeping complaints processes clear, simple and easy to access, focused on customers and outcomes and operating to clearly defined standards.

The results of our survey reveal a plethora of complaints systems, mainly developed by the individual departments and bodies to suit their needs, rather than providing a common approach for the benefit of the public.

For an individual member of the public, who wants to complain about the service they have received from one, or more, public bodies, such a multitude of different systems adds to confusion or frustration, as the diagram shows. This confusion and frustration is also demonstrated by the fact that nearly three quarters of people who complain to the Ombudsman do so too soon, before they have completed a public body’s own complaints procedure. The reasons people most commonly give for bringing their complaint to us include ‘going straight to the top’, ‘wanting a quick result’ and ‘a loss of confidence’ in the public body. Other people are incorrectly signposted to our service as the next stage of the procedure, or are otherwise misinformed about the procedure to follow.