The following Guide to Internal Complaints Systems was first published in 1999. The Office of the Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Guide and intends to publish a revised version in the near future.
Foreword
1. The benefits of having an internal complaints system
2. Preparations for setting up an internal complaints system
3. Setting up and operating the complaints system
4. The essential features of a good internal complaints system
5. Achieving and assessing the benefits
Foreword
Many of the complaints which come to my Office result from a breakdown in communications between public bodies and their clients. Usually these complaints are quickly resolved when the facts, evidence or circumstances are established. In most cases the outcome is either a reversal of the original decision of the public body or an acceptance on the part of the complainant that the decision in respect of his or her case is correct.
Many complaints could and should be easily and swiftly settled at a very early stage by public bodies themselves. The number of relatively uncomplicated complaints which my Office receives could be reduced if public bodies were to establish efficient and credible internal complaints handling systems. I have statutory authority to examine a complaint only where the complainant has taken reasonable steps to seek redress, and has failed to obtain it. Normally I require a complainant, if he or she has not already done so, to ask the public body in question to review the original decision. In many cases this review is carried out by the same official who made the original decision and the complainant often remains dissatisfied and returns to my Office. However, internal complaints systems have been set up by some public bodies to deal directly with complaints from the public. Most notable of these are the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the Complaint Appeals Office in the Eastern Health Board and the Headage and Premia Appeals Unit in the Department of Agriculture and Food. In general these complaint systems enable a particular decision to be reviewed by a person other than the original decision maker and provide a readily available and easily accessible means whereby disputes, misunderstandings and mistakes can be resolved. These systems have the added advantage that, if the original decision is upheld, the complainant is informed of his or her right to refer the matter to my Office. This step is not always taken by public bodies generally within my remit although I would encourage them to do so.
Other public bodies are now considering setting up internal complaints systems under the Government sponsored Strategic Management Initiative with its strong emphasis on citizens and their needs as clients or consumers of public services. Government Departments and Offices are committed to the principles of quality customer care and have agreed to establish well-publicised, accessible, transparent and simple-to-use systems for dealing with complaints about the quality of service provided. They have also agreed to introduce formalised systems of redress for customers who are dissatisfied with decisions.
In my 1996 Annual Report, I published a guide to standards of best practice for public servants in their dealings with the public. I was very pleased by the positive response to the guide from the public service and I am aware that many public bodies have incorporated the standards into their customer service plans. In the guide I suggested that, in order to deal fairly with people, an internal review system was required so that adverse decisions could be looked at again and reviewed by someone not involved in the making of the first decision. Good complaints handling must be accepted as an integral part of customer care. In conjunction with my 1997 report, I am publishing this guide on internal complaints systems. In my report, I illustrate the value and features of such systems by reference to cases which my Office has examined. I hope that this guide will be of assistance to public bodies in their efforts to improve the quality of the service which they provide. The guide is cast in general terms and is intended to be advisory rather than prescriptive. While it contains a number of practical suggestions, each public body should aim to devise a system best suited to its own needs.
1. The benefits of having an internal complaints system
In the past, public bodies may have considered complaints as irritants interfering with their normal work and/or as criticisms of their decisions against which they had to defend themselves. While there is greater emphasis nowadays on improving the quality of service, the standards of service provided for the public are usually set by the public bodies themselves and they also devise the systems and procedures for achieving these standards. The effectiveness of these procedures and the relevance of the standards set can, however, be judged or assessed properly only by reference to the very people - the public - for whom the service is provided. A good internal complaints system will provide essential feedback from the public and will benefit the body by:-
- providing a means through which the public can tell the body how well it is doing in its efforts to provide an improved quality service;
- serving as a quick and efficient means of resolving difficulties which may arise;
- avoiding the extra time and cost involved in further appeals;
- promoting good relations and communications with the public;
- encouraging a positive attitude towards the administrative system;
- indicating where problems exist in the provision of services;
- highlighting shortcomings in the administrative system and areas which might need improvement and
- helping the public body to avoid unfavourable publicity.
The public will also benefit because the system will:-
- provide a quick, easy, and cost-effective means of resolving difficulties with public bodies and obtaining redress where necessary;
- foster a greater sense of inclusiveness or partnership on their part with the public service;
- promote a sense of empowerment in the individual by enabling him or her to have a role in contributing to improvements in the public service and
- give them the assurance that their complaints are being taken seriously and that they are being treated properly, fairly and impartially.
2. Preparations for setting up an internal complaints system
Some public bodies may be inclined to view internal complaints systems as an inconvenience and may merely go through the motions in order to be seen to be doing what is deemed to be a "good thing" for their image. This attitude and approach should be seen for what it is - a lost opportunity. There are real and tangible benefits to be gained from having an effective internal complaints system but, for maximum benefit, certain essential conditions have to be met. These include:
Commitment by management
Internal complaints systems will not be effective if they do not have the commitment of the organisation at management level. A commitment to the principle that dealing effectively with complaints from the public is an integral part of the service provided should underpin the body's mission statement. Management should foster a positive and receptive attitude to complaints. The ability to acknowledge that a mistake was made should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness on the part of the body concerned.
Commitment by staff
Commitment by staff within the organisation is vital. All staff, and particularly those in the front line, should be encouraged to take a positive attitude to complaints. Staff are more likely to do so if they know that there is top level commitment to complaints handling and if they are fully involved in the setting up of the system.
Provision of resources
The complaints system will soon lose the confidence of the public if it cannot deliver on what it promises. It must be provided with the resources, both material and human, to enable it to achieve results. Management must ensure that accommodation, equipment and finances are appropriate and that the staff are highly motivated.
Training
In addition to being highly motivated, the staff involved should have specialised training in customer care, interpersonal and communications skills. Initial training in basic skills and techniques should be complemented by in-service training to enable staff to keep up to date with new advances in the area of complaint handling.
Clear objectives
The success of any complaints system usually depends on those involved in its operation being clear as to what it is intended to achieve. It would be useful at the initial stages of setting up a system to define what a complaint is. The term 'complaint' may cover a wide range of items not all of which may be appropriate to the complaints handling system, e.g. requests for information or matters for which there is a statutory right of appeal, for example, a planning appeal. In this context a working definition might be that a complaint exists where:- 'a decision or action is taken which relates to the provision of a service or the performance of a function which, it is claimed, is not in accordance with the rules, practice or policy of the organisation or the generally accepted principles of equity and good administrative practice and which adversely affects the person concerned'
This definition is not intended to be comprehensive but public bodies might consider using it as a starting point in the context of their own structure and the services they provide. It may also be necessary to review the definition as the complaints system develops.
3. Setting up and operating the complaints system
Structure
Much will depend on the size of the public body, its staffing structure and the nature of the services being provided. Some bodies may find it worthwhile to have identifiable, designated complaint co-ordinators who will refer initial complaints from the public to the head of the unit or section responsible for the original decision. If the complaint is not resolved there the co-ordinator will refer it to the internal complaints handling unit. Either the co-ordinator or the complaints unit should be responsible for monitoring progress and keeping the complainants up-to-date on developments.
The internal complaints unit should be headed by a senior officer in the organisation and should not have any direct working involvement in the areas where the decisions which give rise to complaints are made. The officer should have the authority to alter the original decision if the circumstances suggest that this is warranted, to award redress in appropriate cases and to determine the parameters within which other staff might have the authority to provide redress.
Publicity
The maximum amount of publicity should be given to the setting up of the complaints system. This can be done in a number of ways, for example:-
- including a reference to the system in the body's information leaflets and application forms;
- advertising the availability of the system in the body's public offices, in local papers and on radio and
- arranging information sessions with interest groups.
In particular, the public should feel encouraged to complain; they should believe that it is worthwhile complaining and they should be assured that they will not be victimised as a result of any complaint they make.
Consultation
Complaints arise from the interaction of those providing the service and those for whom the service is being provided. A complaints system will not be effective without prior consultation with these two participants in the system. There should be consultation with staff across the public body and their representative associations or trade unions on the one hand and with the public and specific interest groups on the other. It is important to build up public confidence in the system by guaranteeing fair and impartial treatment.
Review
A good complaints system needs to respond to changing circumstances and events. It needs to be continually reviewed by the person with ultimate responsibility for its organisation and management. The system should be sensitive to factors which can affect its smooth running e.g. maintenance of time schedules for dealing with complaints, staff mobility, morale and the emergence of new sources of complaints of which management may not be aware.
4. The essential features of a good internal complaints system
A good system should be:
Accessible
Simple instructions about how to make a complaint should be available to the public. These should clearly identify the designated complaint handlers and explain how they will operate. The various ways in which a complaint may be made should be stated. Suitable accommodation should be provided for receiving and interviewing complainants who wish to make a complaint in person. Complainants who wish to pursue their complaints using the Irish language should be catered for and the needs of those, for example, with disabilities and literacy difficulties should be given careful consideration. Accessibility will be improved if FREEFONE and Lo-call numbers and freepost facilities are also available. At all times it should be emphasised that complaints are welcome by the public body as a means of improving the quality of service provided.
Simple
The various stages in the complaint handling process should be kept to a minimum with each stage in the process clearly identified. It is essential that internal disputes about the handling of the complaint do not develop. When the receipt of a complaint is being acknowledged, an outline of the various stages the complaint will go through should be sent to the complainant.
Speedy
Targets should be set for acknowledging receipt of complaints and the completion of their examination. Where it is not possible to meet the target for completion, interim letters, updating the complainant on progress, should be issued.
Fair and Independent
Complaints which have not been resolved by the original decision maker should be examined objectively by persons not involved with the original decisions or actions. The examination should have regard not only to the rules governing the scheme but also to considerations of equity and good administrative practice. In particular, the principles outlined in the Ombudsman's Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants (circulated with his 1996 Annual Report) should be taken into account.
Confidential and Impartial
All complaints should be treated in confidence (except where the complainant wishes otherwise). The public should be assured that making a complaint will not adversely affect their future dealings and contacts with the body concerned. Correspondence about the complaint should be filed separately from other information held on the complainant as a client of the body.
Effective
The complaints system should have the authority to address all the issues giving rise to the complaint. Where the examination finds that the fault lies with the public body, the system must have the power to provide appropriate redress. A complainant who remains dissatisfied should be advised of his or her right to refer the case to the Ombudsman where appropriate.
Flexible
While rules are necessary to ensure consistency, too much rigidity should be avoided and there should be a degree of discretion given to those involved in the system to adjust to the changing needs and demands of complainants and to adapt to new situations.
5. Achieving and assessing the benefits
A public body should expect its internal complaints system to:-
- achieve a satisfactory, speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints from service users;
- provide accurate information for management on the quality of the services provided and whether the correct services are being provided and
- enable changes to be made in procedures and systems to ensure that similar complaints do not continue to arise.
Members of the public will expect that they will receive:-
- a fair hearing and a clear explanation of the outcome even if it is not favourable to them;
- an appropriate remedy where it is found that they were not treated fairly or properly and
- an assurance that other people will be spared the adverse affect which complainants may have suffered.
Remedies
The appropriate remedy should aim, in so far as this is possible, to restore the complainant to the position he or she would have been in had things not gone wrong. In many instances, a letter of apology may be sufficient. In some cases a detailed explanation of the basis for the action or decision may be needed. In other cases a change in procedures which would benefit clients generally may be appropriate. Financial compensation may sometimes be warranted in cases, for example, where specific financial losses have been incurred. If there has been a delay in the receipt of a payment, the payment of interest may arise. Where the complainant has had to spend a considerable amount of time in pursuing the matter, payment in recognition of "time and trouble" may need to be considered. Compensation for exceptional worry, distress or inconvenience caused to the complainant should also be recognised.
To avoid delay in the provision of remedies, public bodies should delegate to staff at appropriate levels the power to award redress within predetermined parameters. Front line staff, in particular, as the first point of contact with the public in service delivery and receipt of complaints, should have some discretion within specified limits to settle complaints.
Changes in procedures
Where a complaint has been resolved in favour of a complainant, the result should be noted for reference in similar cases. If a particular issue becomes a regular source of complaint, a review of the operation of the relevant scheme might be undertaken. The complaints unit should build up data on the operation of different schemes and the volume of complaints so that accurate feedback can be given. The use of computerised complaints databases should be considered. ReportsTo ensure accountability and to enable the benefits to be assessed, complaint handling units should publish reports on their activities at least on an annual basis. These reports should detail how the system performed during the year by reference to set targets. Such reports have a useful role to play in building up public confidence in the system and should be made widely available within the organisation and circulated to user groups and other interested parties.