CORPORATE COMPLAINTS CUSTOMER SERVICES CLLR JENNY BOKOR Lead Member DAVE PLATTS Head of Service COMPLAINTS SCRUTINY PANEL 26 th June 2013
How do complaints fit into our strategic aims CORPORATE PLAN CORE VALUE CUSTOMER FIRST We put the customer at the heart of everything we do CUSTOMER SERVICES STRATEGY Customer Insight Culture In-depth understanding of our customers Lead a customer-focused approach Quality Access Get it right first time Choice of how and when to access services
How do complaints fit into our Customer Services Programme CUSTOMER SERVICES PROGRAMME Phase 1 ACCESS AND CULTURE Define the standards by which we manage customer interactions Review of: Corporate Complaints Procedure Customer Service Standards Customer Care Standards
What are the aims of the corporate complaints procedure Consistent Positive Learn lessons from the outcome of Fair, consistent and structured complaints and remedial actions as a process positive method of monitoring Put things right when they go performance and improving our services wrong Enhance the reputation of the council Quality Accessible Improve the quality of our services Use a variety of access channels Improve our relations with service Open to anyone who lives, works or visits users the borough Encourage best practice by our staff Operate within the statutory, regulatory and legal framework
What does the complaints procedure look like I S S N T T S F T A A A LOCAL O G GOVERNMENT G G OMBUDSMAN OR HOUSING R E E OMBUDSMAN E SERVICE M 3 2 A 1 L
How do we administer the complaints procedure Receives complaint: letter, email, eform, telephone Any officer Administrative Logs complaint on Lagan service Allocates to Investigating Officer Sends acknowledgement to customer Investigating Officer Deals with complaint S1 : Team leader Sends response to customer S2: Head of Service Copies response to Administrative service S3: CSDO Implements: Remedies and Lessons Learnt Administrative Logs Outcome, Remedy, Lessons Learnt on Lagan service Prepares Management Reports Services (team meeting)/ Reviews Lessons Learnt partners/contractors SMT/CMT Overview
How do we publicise the complaints procedure � Have Your Say – Telephone, Web form, Email, F2F, Letter � Guidance for staff – Corporate Complaints Procedure Guidance Notes – Induction training
What is a complaint IS IS NOT Initial request for service e.g. the first We made a mistake in the way time a service is asked for we provided a service Initial request for information or an We failed to provide a service explanation of a council policy or practice We delayed in providing a service The correct application of the law or a council policy or procedure We failed to act in a proper manner Where there is a right of Appeal within the council or to an independent tribunal We provided an unfair service
Statistics - Volumes Year Number of complaints Percentage increase/reduction on previous year 2005/06 312 - 2006/07 394 +32% 2007/08 420 +7% 2008/09 614 +46% 2009/10 548 -11% 2010/11 479 -12% 2011/12 600 +25%
Statistics – %age of complaints dealt with at each stage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 YEAR
Statistics – %age of complaints either upheld or partly upheld %AGE OF UPHELD OR PARTLY UNHELD COMPLAINTS 100 90 80 70 PERCENTAGE 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 YEAR
Statistics – complaint reasons 2011/12 Complaint reasons Total number %age of total Total number upheld %age of upheld or corporate complaints or partly upheld partly Service failure 249 41% 158 43% Service delay 84 14% 71 19% Procedure not in place/requires review 17 3% 10 3% Procedure not 23 4% 12 3% followed Disagrees with policy 25 4% 9 2% Incorrect/insufficient 78 13% 41 11% information Administrative error 23 4% 8 2% Staff 82 14% 50 13% attitude/behaviour Miscellaneous 19 3% 11 3% Total 600 100% 370 100%
Statistics – response rates 2011/12 Target response %age of in-time %age of out-of- times responses time responses Stage 1 – 84% 16% 15 working days Stages 2 & 3 – 20 working days
Statistics – Local Government Ombudsman Number of complaints Two-year average Year received 2004/05 51 - 2005/06 33 42 2006/07 20 27 2007/08 15 18 2008/09 25 20 2009/10 11 18 2010/11 26 19 2011/12 17 22
Changes to Ombudsman services � From April 2013 complaints relating to all social housing tenants dealt with by Housing Ombudsman Service (no longer LGO) � Complaint can only be made to HOS by designated person or by complainant if waits 8 weeks � Designated persons are: MP, district councillor or tenant panel � Guidance issued to councillors in May
Satisfaction with complaint handling – council complainants (2011/12) 61 Was your complaint sorted out? % very 39 satisfied/satisfied % dissatisfied/very 44 dissatisfied How well were you treat ed 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P ERCENTAGE
Issues with complaint handling - council complainants (2011/12) Helpfulness of staff Accuracy of reply 3 1 Use of language Wha t wa s t he BES T 1 t hi ng a bout how we Speed of response 2 ha ndl e d y our c ompl a i nt 1 Apology 3 Outcome 1 3 Wha t wa s t he WORS T 1 t hi ng a bout how we 5 ha ndl e d y our c ompl a i nt 3 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 NUM BER
Satisfaction with complaint handling - CNH complainants (2011/12) 14.8% How easy was it to make your complaint? 61.4% How would you rate the staff that dealt with 10.5% 60.5% your complaint in terms of: a. Helpfulness 12.9% b. Knowledge 58.8% 18.8% c. Keeping you informed 61.2% % satisfied/ very satisfied 26.4% How satisfied are you with the time taken to 58.6% respond to your complaint? % dissatisfied/very dissatisfied 11.6% In our written communication with you: a. How 67.4% easy was it to understand our response 25.6% b. Did we address all the points raised 55.8% 16.3% How satisfied are you with : a. The way we 52.3% handled your complaint 44.7% b. The oucome of your complaint 45.9%
Feedback – from other sources � Internal Audit – Dec 2009 – substantial assurance – appropriate actions are being taken to manage risks � LGO – May 2013 – the council gave timely and detailed responses to Ms X’s complaint and further letters and emails, including responses to new issues raised during the complaint process – it is not fault for a council to make a decision or take a position with which the complainant disagrees
Possible areas for further consideration � Does the procedure deliver what the council wants – Learning lessons � within individual services � dissemination to other services � Does the procedure deliver what the customer wants – Customer satisfaction � is the process too long � should we have a centralised process to ensure – consistency, accuracy and quality of response – we get our message across � Why are we not building quality into our processes
Is this really acceptable? � Is it acceptable that an increase in workload automatically leads to and increase in complaints � Would you accept benefit payments being wrong because more claims ? � Would you accept less accurate election results if % of turnout is higher ? � So is it ok for more kitchens and bathroom installations to lead to more problems ? � Shouldn’t we always try to get it right ?
What are our customers complaining about – services with 15 or more complaints 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Service Type No Corporate No Corporate No Corporate No Corporate %age of %age of %age of %age of total total total total complaints complaints complaints complaints Revenues, Revenues 54 10% 26 5% 71 12% 41 6% Benefits & Benefits 14 2% 7 1% 25 4% 26 4% Customer Services Leisure & Public - - - - 18 3% - - Culture Conveniences Leisure Centres - - - - - - 17 2.5% Cleansing & Waste Operations 129 23% 73 15% 61 10% 24 3.5% Open Spaces Green spaces 31 6% 31 6% 18 3% 17 2.5% Operations Planning & Development 42 8% 29 6% 32 5% 46 7% Regeneration Housing Strategic Housing 17 3% 17 3% 24 4% - - Repair/ 93 17% 120 25% 209 35% 340 50% Maintenance Tenancy Services 58 33% 76 16% 67 11% 69 10%
Example complaint � Mrs X complained to contractor about fitting of her new kitchen: ruined contents of her fridge/freezer – broken glass in entry door – soiled toilet after use by operative – operative going into her bedroom – � Contractor took following action: recompensed her for contents of fridge/freezer - £60.00 – boarded glass in door – � Mrs X complained to CBC that: contractor had not replaced glass in door – had not given explanation about why toilet was left in a state or – why someone had gone into her bedroom
Recommend
More recommend
