Memorandum from the Independent Complaints
Reviewer
BACKGROUND TO
THE INDEPENDENT
COMPLAINTS REVIEWER
1.1 The ICR Service was first introduced
in 1998. I am the Independent Complaints Reviewer for The Charity
Commission, The Audit Commission, The Housing Corporation, Land
Registry, The National Archives, and Land Registers Northern Ireland.
At present I am also the Independent Case Examiner for the Child
Support Agency, the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency and
the wider agencies of the Department For Work and Pensions.
1.2 I am a solicitor with extensive management
experience in both the private and public sectors. I am a Fellow
of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and I investigate complaints
made by members of the public, businesses, professional advisors
and others.
1.3 I act as honest broker in seeking a
fair resolution of complaints. I investigate the way in which
organisations have dealt with matters and, where complaints cannot
be resolved through conciliation, I will carry out a full review
to decide whether the complaint is justified.
1.4 I am able to make recommendations aimed
at putting matters right for individual complainants and at improving
an organisations services for the future. When appropriate, I
am also able to recommend modest compensation. Each organisation
has undertaken to implement my recommendations.
1.5 I am not a part of the management structure
of any of the organisations within my remit and my services are
free.
SUMMARY
2.1 As the Independent Complaints Reviewer
for the Charity Commission I note with interest the increasingly
important role for the third sector in areas of work that are
traditionally the responsibility of public bodies, such as the
National Health Service or local government.
2.2 As I write this submission today, the
Charity Commission has issued its report "Stand and Deliver"
on the future for charities providing public service. The results
are perhaps surprising. More than 60% of medium sized and large
charities (income over £500,000) are providing a range of
public services. One in three receive over 80% of their income
from the public sector and this rises to two in three for the
largest charities (income over £10 million). This involvement
in public service delivery brings with it a number of new issues
and challenges for charities to consider.
2.3 The ethic of volunteering and doing
one's best, for the best of reasons, is not necessarily sufficient
in a situation in which people are entitled to a professional
service delivered by professionals. In other words, wider public
accountability for the way in which a service is delivered is
much greater.
2.4 On an individual level, rather than
offering a charitable service which beneficiaries are grateful
to receive, the organisation concerned is delivering a service
against established criteria. People expect no less in standards
than they would from the public body commissioning the work. This
difference must be reflected within the governance and management
of charities, and, in particular, it must be reflected in their
arrangements for responding to user and public concerns and complaints.
2.5 Of course, where services are delivered
in partnership, it is not always clear to the service user where
responsibility lies if something goes wrong. Neither do people
always know how they can take complaints forward and they can
find themselves pushed from pillar to post, as they try to ascertain
who is responsible for the different parts of the service they
have received.
2.6 This has always been a difficult issue
to resolve even between statutory bodies, but the involvement
of the voluntary sector adds a further degree of complexity for
the service user. For example, in the delivery of social care,
if a user is dissatisfied with a service provided by the Local
Authority, ultimately they can refer that matter to the Local
Government Ombudsman. If problems occur in the interface with
the Health service, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
can step in to help the citizen. There is no similar arrangement
for charities.
2.7 It is not the responsibility of the
Charity Commission to deal with personal complaints about the
service given to an individual, neither can it offer any form
of redress, even where governance issues are the root cause of
the problem. In this growing area of public service, the citizen
remains unprotected by redress mechanisms other than the courts.
I believe the Select Committee should take an active interest
in this gap.
2.8 Before steps are taken to put this right,
there is an onus on voluntary organisations to develop and maintain
clear and published professional service standards, so that users
know what they can expect in terms of how a service will be delivered
to them, and how they can take forward complaints if that standard
is not met. Service level agreements should incorporate a clear
understanding of who will be responsible for dealing with complaints
in a holistic manner, whether the contracting body or the voluntary
sector organisation that provides the service, and specify how
that complaint response will be provided.
2.9 The Charity Commission's recent survey
into complaints processes and attitudes to complaints within charities,
demonstrates that in far too many charities this is a neglected
area, and one which culturally does not sit well with many trustees.
This cultural difference between the not for profit and the public
sector in my view has to be addressed.
2.10 The Select Committee has now a real
opportunity to make a leap forward on behalf of the citizen by
considering a recommendation for the establishment of the office
of an Ombudsman for Charities. I have called for this development
in my previous annual reports, and this suggestion has been supported
by the Charity Commission itself.
2.11 I would be happy to offer any further
information the Committee may wish to receive.
Kindly note that further information about my
office can be obtained from my website:
http://www.icrev.demon.co.uk/
February 2007
| 
