Handling complaints
506. The IND Complaints Unit acts as the central
point of contact for all complaints about the IND. Complaints
are categorised as either operational or formal. Operational
complaints relate to the way the IND works, so may for instance
be about the time taken to process an application, or the lack
of accurate information or facilities. The department responsible
for investigating the complaint will be responsible for informing
the complainant of the outcome. Formal complaints are about
the conduct of an individual member of IND staff, for example
if an applicant considers staff to have been inefficient, rude,
offensive or unprofessional. The IND Complaints Unit will take
responsibility for co-ordinating these investigations, and when
the investigation of a formal complaint is complete, the complaint
file will be audited by the IND Complaints Audit Committee (CAC),
an independent panel set up in 1994. The IND aims to provide an
answer to operational complaints within four weeks and the findings
of formal investigations within eight weeks.
507. The new Chairman of the CAC, Dr Ann Barker,
is scathing in her criticism of the IND's complaints system:
There
are three major problems: one, that the system is so fragmented
that it is not working at all efficiently and that customer satisfaction
is not what it should be; two, that the quality of investigations
is low; and, three, that operational complaints are not being
addressed at all adequately and no one knows quite how many there
are.[492]
508. There are 500 to 600 formal complaints a year,
about one third of which are so serious (for instance allegations
of assault) that they should, in Dr Barker's opinion, be referred
to the police.[493]
The CAC's recent audit of formal complaints against named
individuals indicated a very low quality of service: it found
that in three out of four investigations the evidence-gathering
was inequitable (complainants are not interviewed, there is no
attempt to test their evidence, and little independent evidence
on their side, in contrast to "quite detailed investigation
on the side of the official in regard to independent witnesses
and any other corroborating evidence),[494]
and in two replies to complainants out of three, the reasons given
were "indefensible".[495]
And yet these investigations cost £3,000 each.[496]
509. Dr Barker notes that the CAC has hitherto not
audited "operational complaints", i.e. those relating
to the way the IND works as opposed to formal complaints relating
to the attitudes and behaviour of staff. The CAC has carried out
an initial scoping exercise which indicates that the number of
formal complaints is dwarfed by the number of operational complaints,
of which there are about 26,000 a year. 90% of operational complaints
arise from delays in decision-making.[497]
Dr Barker told us that "it is completely unknown how much
is being spent" on these complaints, but that a "large
and incalculable amount of money is being wasted".[498]
510. Dr Barker concludes that the problems with the
complaints system in the IND have arisen for reasons which include:
- a "defensive culture in
regard to complaints" within the IND
- a lack of real customer focus with complaints
being seen as a nuisance and accorded low priority
- complaints not being viewed as a source of business
intelligence or management information
- lack of relevant skills amongst officials
- fragmentation of the complaints handling system
(the IS and the IND operate separate systems; databases are incompatible;
there is poor file management and tracking)
· a lack of agreed
standards and effective procedures for handling operational complaints,
and inadequate guidance on handling formal complaints. [499]
511. She calls for "a fundamental reform of
the way complaints are viewed and handled", with "a
strategic realignment of complaints management within the business
cycle". She makes the following recommendations:
- there should be a single complaints
system (and a single central database) for the whole organisation,
but with a variety of channels for making a complaint to it
- complaints should be categorised more effectively
so that each receives an appropriate response
- there should be more intensive investigation
of complaints of serious misconduct (one third of complaints against
individuals fit into this category) with reference to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission in the most serious cases
- the option of informal resolution should be available
for less serious complaints of misconduct
- the system should provide real-time business
intelligence to enable managers to improve their performance.[500]
512. On this last point, she suggested that at the
moment "The opportunity to redress service deficiencies has
been lost. The organisation cannot learn from its mistakes."[501]
513. When we visited the Complaints Unit on our visit
to the IND in Croydon we were told that it is in the middle of
a period of change, that it is looking to redefine complaints
to remove the artificial distinction between formal and operational
complaints and that new software is being introduced to improve
the monitoring of complaints and include follow-up action.
514. Fiona Lindsley, formerly Independent Monitor
for Entry Clearance Refusals without the right of appeal, told
us that although relatively few people complain about visa applications,
in about two thirds of cases she found responses to complaints
unsatisfactory.[502]
UKvisas does not have an equivalent of the CAC.
515. Whilst we welcome the extension of the IND
Complaints Audit Committee's role to cover the huge number of
"operational complaints", we call for the Government
to implement a single immigration complaints system, covering
both the IND and UKvisas, with a variety of channels of complaint
and a variety of methods for dealing with those complaints, ranging
from informal resolution to intensive investigation. We particularly
emphasise the need for the organisation and individuals within
it to learn from substantiated complaints.
480 
