Agenda item

Report of the Customer Services Section Head

This report provides an overview of the councils management and performance in responding to complaints and comments. 

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Customer Service Section Head which provided an overview of the Council’s management and performance when responding to complaints and comments.

The Customer Service Section Head gave a presentation covering the corporate complaints procedure; an analysis of the complaints and a comparison of the number of complaints received in 2014/15 and 2015/16.  She also highlighted other matters including complaints through social media and the ongoing issues with the eform. 

The Customer Service Section Head advised that an amendment needed to be made to some figures within the report.  In paragraph 3.16, there had been a total of 18 complaints and not 16 as printed.  In the table in paragraph 3.18, Regeneration and Development had received five complaints, not three and the total was 18 complaints not 16.  It was noted that of the five complaints about Corporate Strategy and Client Services four were from the same complainant and about the same issue.

The Customer Service Section Head said that the Council used complaints to address issues raised by customers.  They enabled officers to consider the points raised, rectify any issues and review policies where necessary.  They were not viewed as a bad thing, but as an opportunity to improve the service the Council provided to its customers.

Complaints procedure

Councillor Joynes noted the timescales set out in the complaints procedure, but questioned whether the Council should respond quicker than the current 10 working days response deadline or a specific date should be provided.

The Customer Service Section Head advised that there had been no complaints about the current time limit.  The acknowledgement letter, sent within three working days of receipt of the complaint, confirmed that a formal response would be sent within 10 working days.

The Head of Community and Customer Services added that the Council usually acknowledged the complaint before the three day acknowledgement deadline had passed.  The timescale gave officers time to respond in case the Customer Liaison Officer (CLO) was not in the office on the day the complaint was received. 

Following a question from Councillor T Williams, about a definition of a complaint, the Customer Service Section Head responded that there was a fine line.  The staff guide, available on the Intranet, included a section ‘What is a complaint?’, providing examples.  It was agreed that the staff guide would be circulated to the Scrutiny Committee for information.

Councillor Joynes asked whether complaints made on social media were included in the statistics.

The Customer Service Section Head explained that the feedback on the Council’s social media accounts were monitored but most of the comments were ‘chatter’ about generic matters or the responsibility of the County Council.  Officers did review the comments and considered whether they needed to be classed as formal complaints.  The most serious complaints were taken offline and then logged as a formal complaint and the complainant was contacted direct.

The Customer Service Section Head explained the further stages of the complaints procedure.  She advised that if a complainant wished to escalate their complain to stage two, they had to put it in writing.  She confirmed that notification by email was acceptable.

Following a question from Councillor Rindl, the Customer Service Section Head explained that of the six complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman, five had been advised to contact the Council and use its complaints procedure, as this action had not been completed.  The sixth case was under review.

In response to questions about outsourced services and those shared with Three Rivers District Council, the Customer Service Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that any complaints should be made direct to the provider of the service.  The companies then provided information about complaints to the Council’s Client Managers.  She confirmed that each company may have different procedures to the Council’s two stage process.  She advised that complaints about benefits were handled by the relevant authority, therefore a Watford benefit case would be progressed through the Watford complaints procedure and a Three Rivers case would be progressed through that authority’s procedure.

Due to Members’ concerns about the potentially different complaints procedures for outsourced services, the Committee and Scrutiny Officer suggested that, if Members felt that this area needed further investigation, it should be referred to Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel.  The Scrutiny Panel could then raise this matter with the service providers.  It was agreed that the Committee and Scrutiny Officer would refer the matter to the Chair of Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Crout. 

Following a question from Councillor Topping about customer satisfaction with responses, the Customer Service Section Head advised that three-quarters of complainants did not progress to the second stage. 

The Chair asked officers whether there was any work or actions the Members could do to help the service’s work.

The Customer Service Section Head responded that Members were welcome to visit the Customer Service Centre and see it in operation. 

The Chair and Councillor Rindl both said that they had visited the Customer Service Centre and had found it very interesting.  It had highlighted some of the varied problems residents wanted to discuss with officers. 

The Chair thanked the Customer Service Section Head and Head of Community and Customer Services for attending the meeting and responding to Members’ questions.

RESOLVED –

that the report and presentation be noted.