Contact : Graham Linecar Ext 7390

1. Summary and Purpose of Report

1.1. The Local Government Ombudsman Annual Report 2002/03 was published on 3 July. It gives summary information about the Ombudsmen's handling of complaints and includes statistics for complaints against each individual local authority.

1.2. This report provides the Committee with information from the Annual Report, including data about complaints against the County Council.

1.3. For the first time, the Ombudsman has prepared an Annual Letter (this year, to pilot authorities only) analysing and commenting on complaints about that authority.

1.4. In previous years, reporting of the Ombudsman's Annual Report to this Committee has been linked with a report on corporate monitoring of complaints. Some services have not yet reported to the appropriate Policy Review Committee (PRC) on performance in responding to complaints. The corporate monitoring report has therefore been deferred until the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee may wish to express the hope that services will next year report more promptly to PRCs to enable the two to be considered together by this Committee in July 2004.

2. Ombudsman's Annual Report 2002/03

2.1. The three Local Government Ombudsmen have published their Annual Report 2002/03. They recorded a 4 percent decrease nationally in the number of complaints made to them compared with the previous year. This reflects a continued fall in the number of complaints about housing benefit administration : figures for preceding years reflected large numbers of complaints about administration of housing benefit in a small number of authorities.

2.2. The Ombudsman determined 41 complaints against the County Council in 2002/03 compared with 56 determinations in the previous year. For comparison, corresponding figures for Essex County Council were 51 and 47 and for Kent 55 and 64. These numbers are low: we live in a society increasingly aware of its rights and where individuals are ready to pursue matters when decisions go against them. It is therefore a reflection of the effectiveness of the County Council's staff in providing and running services (and in properly responding to complaints made to services so individuals do not pursue the matter with the Ombudsman) that numbers of complaints to the Ombudsman remain so small.

2.3. In some cases, the Ombudsman is able to reach a conclusion on a complaint without asking the County Council for comment or further information. However, many require a response. Each takes considerable staff time to prepare both within the Chief Executive's Department and the service department. The Ombudsman asks for a response within 15 working days which can place pressure on the departments and officers involved. In 2002/03 he asked the Chief Executive to respond to 22 enquiries, an increase on the preceding year when there were 19 enquiries requiring response.

2.4. In most cases, the Ombudsman reaches a determination of the complaint on the basis of that information, or following a further request for clarification on particular points or for specific additional information. In a few instances, the Ombudsman's investigator proceeds to inspect files and interview those involved, and that can include Members. In almost all cases, the Ombudsman then writes in confidence to the complainant setting out reasons for discontinuing investigation of the complaint, copying the letter to the County Council.

2.5. 22 of the complaints determined by letter in 2002/03 were found to be unjustified and a conclusion of no maladministration recorded. 5 were found to be outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. 10 investigations were discontinued for other reasons, most because initial investigation established that the complainant had suffered no real injustice - and the Ombudsman's principal purpose is to assist individuals who have suffered significant injustice as a consequence of maladministration. In 4 cases investigation was discontinued because the Ombudsman considered action taken by the County Council subsequent to receipt of the complaint had established a reasonable settlement of the issue for the complainant. This is termed by the Ombudsman `local settlement' and his Annual Report comments on his satisfaction that an increasing proportion of complaints are settled in this way.

2.6. The law provides for the Ombudsman to publish reports of investigation of complaints. Very few investigations reach this stage. Most are discontinued at the Ombudsman's discretion without publication of a report. The Ombudsman published no report relating to a complaint against the County Council in 2002/03.

2.7. As in previous years, as the Ombudsman observes in his Annual Letter, `the complaint numbers are low for a Council of your size in view of the considerable number of decisions the Council takes on behalf of its citizens each year.' 7 of the complaints determined were about school admission appeals and 5 were about highway related matters. There were 4 complaints each about Education and Planning. 13 of the complaints determined were about Social Services.

3. Ombudsman's Annual Letter to the County Council

3.1. The Ombudsman is adopting the practice of the District Auditor and issuing an Annual Letter to the County Council recording summary information about the complaints which he has received and determined in the preceding year.

3.2. This is the first year, and the Ombudsmen have issued Annual Letters to a pilot 120 local authorities, including the County Council. The Letter is attached. It invites comments and feedback to facilitate improvement.

3.3. The most obvious comment is the absence of comparative data - difficult when the Letter is being sent only to `pilot' authorities. Nevertheless, it would be informative for the main statistics relating to complaints and the County Council's performance in dealing with complaints to be set alongside an average or mean for all authorities or, perhaps more usefully, similar authorities.

3.4. The Annual Letter includes two suggestions for making improvements.

3.5. The Ombudsman comments (in paragraph 2) that some complainants bringing to him concerns about Social Services matters `were unclear about how the complaints procedure operated, so you may wish to review the information that is given to them about your internal and statutory complaints procedures.' The issue has arisen because special arrangements apply for investigation of complaints from `qualifying persons' - those who satisfy criteria set down in legislation (principally that they are seeking or are in receipt of services provided or arranged by Social Services) for their complaint to be dealt with following special procedures of investigation by an Independent Person and reconsideration by a Review Panel. Those procedures are not available to all who make complaints to Social Services. Some complainants are not `qualifying persons' and their complaints are therefore investigated following procedures set down in the corporate complaints policy (Fact sheet 4). The Social Services Department is reviewing publicity and information provided to complainants. The Committee may therefore reassure the Ombudsman that the action he recommends has been taken, but additionally comment to the Ombudsman that the situation is a reflection of the fact that complaints made to the Social Services Department are not all dealt with following a single procedure but that two procedures apply and it is not always clear, at the outset, whether or not a complainant is a qualifying person entitled to have their complaint considered through the special statutory procedures.

3.6. The second comment (in paragraph 3) relates to time taken to respond to enquiries. Paragraph 2.3 of this report sets out the pressure in providing a response to the Ombudsman on what are often complex and difficult issues in only 15 working days. The County Council's response times indicate the urgency and priority attached to preparing those responses. It would be interesting to see comparative data for other authorities. When data was published in the last Ombudsman's Annual Report, the County Council's performance surpassed almost all other authorities. It may be that the Ombudsman is setting an unrealistically demanding target and it is the target which should be reviewed rather than this authority's performance.

3.7. Paragraph 7 records an agreement to include in a future issues of Hampshire Now magazine an article highlighting the Ombudsman's service. The article is scheduled to appear in the autumn edition.

3.8. Members may wish to consider suggesting improvements which could be made in content and coverage of future Annual Letters. Comparative data on overall number of complaints, breakdown by service and performance in responding to inquiries would help place the County Council's analysis in context. Comparison would probably most usefully be made with all County Councils rather than all local authorities.

3.9. Members should note that minor presentational changes have been made to the table to enable it to be more easily read and understood - and these changes will be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman. In reading the table, it is important to recognise that totals in the first and second tables do not correlate because the first table relates to complaints received in the year and the second to decisions. The interpretation notes attached to the table define the terms used to categorise decisions - and explain that `premature complaints' are those where the authority has not had an opportunity to respond. The Ombudsman will usually send these to the Chief Executive with a request that they are taken through the County Council's own complaints procedure. Members should also be aware that the service categories used by the Ombudsman do not in all cases correspond with departmental responsibilities in this authority - he includes complaints about rights of way under `highways' and school admission appeals are dealt with in the Chief Executive's Department whereas his figures include them under `education.'

Recommendations

It is recommended:

1. that the Committee notes with satisfaction that in 2002/03 numbers of complaints to the Ombudsman remained low in relation to the number of decisions the County Council takes on behalf of its citizens and that the Local Government Ombudsman discontinued investigation of all complaints against the County Council and issued no reports relating to complaints against the County Council.

2. that the Committee welcomes the Ombudsman's new initiative of preparing an Annual Letter, thanks him for the generally supportive comments it makes and asks the Chief Executive to respond on points of detail in presentation of data but particularly commends the inclusion of some comparative data in future Annual Letters.

3. that the Committee expresses the hope that, in 2004, services will report on complaints handling to appropriate Policy Review Committees in time for a corporate report to be made to the Committee at its July meeting.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

File Location

APPENDIX

Ombudsman's Annual Letter to a Pilot Group of Authorities

Hampshire County Council

1. Volume of complaints

I attach statistical data relating to complaints received and determined by my office during 2002/03 together with an explanatory note. We received 56 complaints against your Council last year. Overall the complaint numbers are low for a Council of your size in view of the considerable number of decisions the Council takes on behalf of its citizens each year. The fluctuation in the number of complaints received year on year is not unusual.

If you have any concerns about the accuracy of these results please feel free to discuss them with us.

2. Character of complaints

The distribution of complaints across the various categories is not unusual for a county council. Some complaints about Social Services involved complainants who were unclear about how the complaints procedure operated, so you may wish to review the information that is given to them about your internal and statutory complaints procedures.

3. Time taken to respond to enquiries

As you may know when first enquiries are made on a case we ask for a response within 21 days as this is a considerable help to us in reaching a prompt and full conclusion on each case. I see that this year your average response time has been above that, but we appreciate your Council's efforts to provide the requested information as promptly as you can.

4. Reports

I am pleased to see that I issued no Reports against your Council last year.

5. Local settlements

Four complaints were settled locally across three different service areas - Planning, Housing and Leisure and Recreation - and these complaints do not raise any particular issues. I welcome the Council's willingness to settle complaints where there appears to have been fault.

Recent changes in the law have clarified the Council's ability to pay compensation to customers who have suffered injustice arising from maladministration. Assessing the level of such compensation can be difficult. My staff have a wide experience of this and if you think we can help in this area my staff would be happy to provide informal advice on a case by case basis; or could deliver some training. The Commission also publishes a guidance note - copies of this have been sent to the Council but further copies can be obtained via the Commission website. And our annual digest of cases gives up to date comparators which you may find useful.

6. No maladministration/injustice

In 37 cases, my officers decided that there were not matters which should be pursued. No particular issues were raised by these cases.

7. Liaison with the Ombudsman's office

My staff feel that they have a positive working relationship with the Council and welcome the constructive comments on complaints received from Graham Linecar. During the year I asked the Council to help me develop the level of awareness of my role with its citizens. It has agreed to consider including an article about my work in its magazine. The Council's complaints leaflet includes reference to my role and this information is also on the Council's website. And it makes available copies of the complaints booklet the Commission publishes. I am grateful to the Council for this help.

In addition to the reference to remedies advice I have already made, if I can be of any further help with Member or staff training, please let me know.

8. General observations

We have found your Council's general approach to dealing with complaints to be prompt, constructive and helpful. Thank you for the co-operation shown to my officers throughout the year.

9. Conclusion

This is the first Annual Letter I have written to your Council. I hope you have found it useful but I would very much value any comments you may have about the presentation and content of the Letter. This is a learning experience for us as well as for councils. My aim is that future letters should be as responsive as possible to the needs of local government and that the letters contain information and assessments that are helpful to councils seeking to improve their services.

LOCAL AUTHORITY REPORT - Hampshire County Council For period ending 31 March 2003

Notes to assist interpretation of the Commission's Local Authority Statistics

1. General

We have used the most up to date figures available to us at the time of issuing this annual letter. There may be some minor corrections to be made over the next few months before we can completely finalise the figures. However any adjustment should not be significant.

2. Decisions

This information records the number of decisions made by the Ombudsman, by outcome, within the periods mentioned. (This number will not be the same as the number of complaints received.)

a) Premature complaints

Premature complaints are those which are not accepted for consideration by the Local Government Ombudsmen because the councils concerned have not had a reasonable opportunity to deal with them first. Premature complaints are sent to the councils concerned with a request that they should investigate them. If a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of a council's investigation, he or she can complain to the Ombudsman again.


b) Outside jurisdiction

The Ombudsmen can investigate most types of complaints against local authorities. But there are some things the law does not allow them to investigate, such as personnel matters, the internal management of schools and colleges, and matters which affect all or most of the people living in a council's area. Such complaints, when they are terminated, are described as being outside jurisdiction.


c) Local settlements

The term local settlement is used to describe the outcome of a complaint where, during the course of an investigation, the council takes, or agrees to take, some action which the Ombudsman considers is a satisfactory response to the complaint. This may occur, for example, in any of the following circumstances:

· the council on its own initiative says that there was fault that caused injustice, and proposes a remedy which the Ombudsman accepts is satisfactory

· the council accepts the suggestion by the Ombudsman, as an independent person, that there was fault which caused injustice, and agrees a remedy which the Ombudsman accepts is satisfactory

· the council does not consider that there was fault but is able to take some action which the Ombudsman accepts is a satisfactory outcome

· the council and the complainant themselves agree upon a course of action and the Ombudsman sees no reason to suggest any different outcome; or

· the Ombudsman discontinues the investigation because he or she considers that, even if the investigation were to continue, no better outcome would be likely to be achieved for the complainant than the action the council has already taken or agreed.


d) Ombudsman's discretion

Complaints described as terminated by Ombudsman's discretion are those which have been terminated because, for example:

· the complainant wishes to withdraw his or her complaint

· the complainant has moved away and the Ombudsman is no longer able to contact him or her

· the complainant decides to take course action; or

· we find there is no or insufficient injustice to justify continuing the investigation


e) No maladministration

These are decisions by letter discontinuing an investigation because no, or insufficient, evidence of maladministration has been found.

3. Response Times

These figures record the time taken from the date we send our letter with first enquiries on a complaint to the date that a substantive response is received from the council. Councils' own figures may differ somewhat since they tend to be recorded from the date our letter is received until despatch of their response. The average number of days shown represents calendar days (not working days) since at present our computer database does not enable us to calculate working days.