18. Memorandum submitted by the IND
Complaints Audit Committee
1. Lin Homer, Director General of IND, and
Joanna Place, Director of the Change and Reform Directorate, challenged
us to be robust and rigorous in discharging our remit. We have
acted on this mandate when conducting the first three quarterly
audits of 2005.
2. The most recent survey of complainants
by the Customer Focus Unit highlighted the following:
— One in four found the service of
the IND Complaints Unit good or very good;
— One in four found it OK;
— Half were dissatisfied—one
in three found it poor and one in five found it very poor;
— One in three felt that a full and
impartial investigation had been carried out;
— Less than half felt that their complaint
had been taken seriously.
3. Our own audit findings in regard to formal
complaints against named officials indicate a significantly lower
quality of service:
— In three out of four investigations
the evidence gathering was inequitable;
— In two replies to complainants out
of three the reasons given were indefensible.
This is serious insofar as IND is exercising
significant new powers which have an impact on the lives and personal
safety of thousands of asylum seekers. Enforcement, removals and
detention involve police-like powers of entry to premises, restraint
of persons, detention in holding centres and forceable removal.
These powers are exercised over people who are often both vulnerable
and desperate. If the UK asylum system is to work properly, it
must protect those whom society may least wish to protect. In
this regard an effective complaints system is vital to expose
and redress misconduct, malpratice and unlawful violence. The
current system patently fails to do this.
4. Operational complaints relating to poor
quality of service have never been audited by the CAC. Our initial
scoping exercise shows that:
— IND estimates approximately 26,000
pa;
— Our analysis of 3,000 indicates that
90% arise from delays in decision-making.
It is important to stress that the above are
limited to complaints made in writing. Attempts to resolve service
deficiencies by informal means such as personal visits and telephone
calls are not recorded. An indication of customers' frustration
is the 40,000 MPs letters p.a. arising from constituents' dissatisfaction
with IND service.
To our minds these failures mean that the opportunity
to redress service deficiencies has been lost. The organisation
cannot learn from its mistakes. A vicious circle has been created
in which initial complaints have not been properly resolved, further
complaints relating to the same incident have been registered
and resources have been wasted. The current system appears to
us to be unmanageable and at risk of spiralling out of control.
For example, we have been told about repositories holding thousands
of files awaiting decisions. These include files relating to the
deportation of failed asylum seekers. Given our finding that "delayed
decisions" is a major cause of operational complaints, we
are concerned that work in progress on these files could lead
to further complaints and MP cases.
5. Based on our audits, visits, meetings
and discussion with staff, we conclude that these problems have
arisen because:
— IND has had a defensive culture in
regard to complaints.
— IND's approach has lacked real customer
focus insofar as complaints have been seen as a nuisance and have
been given low priority. An indication of this is the delay in
processing complaints to agreed targets.
— Complaints are not viewed as a source
of business intelligence or management information.
— Complaints are not an integral part
of the business planning cycle.
— The complaints handling system does
not meet Cabinet Office standards.
— The complaints handling system is
fragmented: IS and IND operate separate systems; databases are
incompatible; poor file management and tracking increases inefficiency.
— Officials lack the skills to conduct
proper investigations into complaints against named individuals.
— To date there has been a lack of
clear values, agreed standards and effective procedures for handling
operational complaints. There is guidance on handling complaints
against named officials, but we assess these as inadequate.
6. In our view the system requires a fundamental
reform of the way complaints are viewed and handled. It also requires
a strategic realignment of complaints management within the business
cycle and organisational thinking so that the customer is at the
centre of business activities and complaints handling. We are
encouraged by early discussions with the 2010 team responsible
for strategic improvement of IND to 2010.
7. We have recommended that:
— There should be a single system for
the whole organisation.
— This system should be more discerning
than the current system in order properly to deal with different
types of complaints. We have created a matrix to assist IND to
categorise complaints more effectively and improve decision-making
about the way complaints are handled.
— It should focus rigorously on investigating
complaints of serious misconduct. One third of complaints against
individuals are so serious that they should be investigated by
a small group of properly-trained investigators working to proper
standards and guidance to ensure a thorough investigation which
would withstand independent scrutiny. In accordance with ministerial
wishes we have assisted officials in designing a mechanism to
call in the IPCC in the most serious cases.
— It should offer the option of informal
resolution for complaints of less serious misconduct. Our audit
has highlighted that two-thirds of complaints against named individuals
can be handled by informal resolution. This would require fewer
resources than currently expended and would greatly improve customer
satisfaction.
— It should provide a means of redress
through service recovery so that matters are quickly put right
for complainants.
— It should provide real-time business
intelligence to enable managers to improve performance and service.
— It should be an integral part of
the business planning cycle and should form part of a strategy
to develop professional standards in IND.
8. We have found examples of good practice
which we have saluted in our current audit. We are encouraged
that IND senior executives and senior managers have responded
positively to some of our recommendations and are engaging with
us in devising ways to improve systems.
13 December 2005
| 
