Agenda item

[Report will be sent to follow]

The Panel received a report from the Customer Engagement Manager, requesting the Board to review complaints management and performance for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

The Council had received 256 stage one corporate complaints in comparison to 185 received during the same period in 2019/20. Details of the complaints were provided in Appendix 2. It was noted that out of the 256 cases received, 97 were upheld (at fault).

In relation to the corporate stage one complaints, the highest figure of 170 complaints referred to Waste Management and out of 170 received, 82 were upheld; this was in comparison to 56 stage one complaints received during the same period in 2019/20. The Complaints Team had worked closely with the waste management service to improve complaint handling and ensure

appropriate remedies were put in place to achieve the best outcomes for customers. The council received 20 stage two cases; Out of the 20 cases received, 4 cases were upheld (at fault), 2 were partially upheld and 14 cases were not upheld (not at fault).

The Council had received 33 stage one Children’s Services complaints in comparison to 58 complaints for the same period in 2019/20, this was a decrease of 25 and details were provided in Appendix 1. The Board noted that no stage one cases were upheld, 19 were partially upheld and 14 cases were not upheld.

There had been five stage two complaints which was consistent with the previous year and no stage three complaints had been received.

The Council had received 32 stage one Adult Services complaints in comparison to 53 in the previous year. Six cases had been upheld, 13 were partially upheld and 13 were not upheld.

The Council received 30 Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) assessment enquiries and 13 full enquiries. Wolverhampton Homes had received 7 Housing Ombudsman (HO) assessment enquiries and 7 full enquiries.

The Board understood that when a complaint was upheld (council at fault) and the findings of a subsequent investigation required a financial remedy, change to policy or service delivery, the Customer Feedback Team produced an action plan report. Recommendations within these reports were agreed with appropriate Heads of Service and shared with the relevant Service Manager or Director to ensure appropriate remedies and changes were implemented. The Customer Feedback Team also attended regular quality assurance meetings for Adults and Children’s Services and Waste Liaison meetings to ensure that learning from complaints was used to drive service improvement.

A number of compliments had also been received with 221 for Corporate Services, 22 for Children’s Services and 142 for Adult’s and Public Health Services.

The Chair thanked the Customer Engagement Manager for the presentation.

A question was raised as to whether a complaint form always had to be completed for a complaint to be logged and that this might put some residents off submitting a complaint. The query was raised as to whether this might account for the low number (8) of complaints in relation to arboriculture matters. It was also noted that complaints in relation to environmental and waste management continued to remain high and were not reducing over time.

The Customer Engagement Manager stated that to make a complaint, most customers used the online form but that they could also use the email address, contact the team by phone or write a letter. In relation to the waste complaints, this was and had always been a theme but the Customer Engagement team were working very closely with the waste management team to try and reduced the figures and that the service had been hit hard by the pandemic. In relation to the arboriculture complaints, this was all that had been received and the Board noted that it might be the case that residents often reported issues to their councillors in the hope that this might resolve the matter, rather than submit a formal complaint to the Council. The Customer Engagement Manager agreed that she would have a look at the complaints form to ensure that it was straight forward to complete.

The Director of City Economy advised the Board that a report in relation to trees had been considered by the Vibrant and Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Panel in the previous year and that an update on this could be provided if requested. It was also noted that the waste services complaints did appear high but in comparison to the number of collections made (8 or 9 million) the percentage of complaints was not as extreme as it might appear. The importance of feeding back live information was also noted in relation to improving service delivery and again the impact that the pandemic had on the waste collection service was highlighted. The Director of City Environment commended the work done by the waste collection service but agreed that there was a need to focus on the customers who were dissatisfied. The Board agreed that many residents were grateful and complimentary of the service when it was efficient, which was the case most of the time. The Board did however voice concerns into what it considered to be the inadequacy of the purple bins and hoped that when these were replaced, that the replacements would be much sturdier. The Board also considered that it would be useful to receive some evidence of the lessons learnt from the complaints and that it was only considering issues where a complaint had been made and that there would be many more residents who may be dissatisfied but had not made a complaint or just addressed their concerns to councillors directly.

Board requested a better breakdown of the waste management complaints moving forward and some additional information in relation to the purple bins and the contract that was currently in place regarding them.

Board considered fly tipping and whether the Council was getting value for money out of the contractors that were being used and whether there was another way to try an apprehend the people who were fly tipping. Board considered that the £100 incentive of the previous year had been good but that a new initiative was now needed, it was considered that the Council needed to build anti fly tipping processes into everyday practices rather than using contractors. The Director of City Environment stated that the approach to fly tipping had changed in recent months and it was also about trying to reduce waste as a whole. Enforcement was a crucial part in relation to fly tipping and evidence gathering was complex, the shop a tipper initiative was still happening and considered effective. Work was being done with residents to try and reduce waste and there was a drive across the Council to encourage employees who were already out and about to report any fly tipping. The main aim now was however to seek to reduce waste in general.

In relation to the Children’s complaints, a concern was raised in relation to the amount of time between the complaint and the response and whether a response or action would happen quicker if the complaint dealt with safeguarding or child protection. The Customer Engagement Manager commented that if it was safeguarding then it would be reported outside of this process and be considered directly by the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). It was however noted that cases regarding children could be complex to investigate and that the Customer Engagement Team worked closely with the service area to ensure that timescales were adhered to, monthly meetings were also held with the Deputy Director for Children’s Services and the complainant was always kept informed as to how the complaint was progressing.

The Board considered how the complaints process fitted in with the new Councillor Enquiries Unit. As many residents did liaise with councillors in the first instance rather than lodge a formal complaint.  The Chief Operating Officer stated that the Councillor Enquiry Unit had only gone live after the time scales that the current report referred to, however he stated that he would update councillors in relation to this and to ensure that the trends from the enquiries were picked up and identified. A report would be prepared in October in relation to this and would be considered by the Governance and Ethics Committee.

Board queried the breakdown of compliments and the percentage coming from councillors and those coming from the public. A request was also made for a ward level breakdown of complaints. The Customer Engagement Manager confirmed that all of the compliments were from customers and not from councillors. At the moment it was not possible to provide a ward level breakdown of complaints but that this was being looked at moving forward.

The Board noted that the Adult’s Service figures for locality west appeared higher than in other areas and questioned whether there was a reason for this. It was noted that there was no specific reason, but a more detailed breakdown of the figures could be provided.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.