The cost of complaints
8. There are value for money arguments for improving
how government bodies handle complaints. The NAO report on citizen
redress attempted to quantify the cost of running complaints mechanisms
for public services. Due to a lack of consistency in how departments
record data about complaints, particularly cost data, their figures
represent a 'best estimate' of the cost of dealing with complaints.
However, the scale of the redress system is not in question: the
NAO suggested it was nearly two per cent of overall central government
administrative costs. In the year 2003-04:
- nearly 1.4 million cases were
received through redress systems in central government annually;
- these were processed by over 9,300 staff; and
- the annual cost of running redress mechanisms
was at least £510 million. Of this total, £132 million
was spent dealing with complaints; appeals and tribunal cases
cost £366 million; and compensation payments came to £12
million.[5]
These figures cover all redress systems, complaints,
appeals and tribunals, and Ombudsmen and independent complaints
review bodies.
9. Systems that resolve complaints early on are relatively
cheap. Expenditure on complaints comprises spending by departments
and agencies on resolving complaints themselves, as well as the
cost of Ombudsmen or complaint review bodies. In 2003-04, there
were 543,000 new complaints made to central government bodies,
which cost departments and agencies a total of £59 million
to handle. In contrast, the various public sector Ombudsmen and
independent review bodies cost a total of £73 million and
received 42,000 new cases of complaints for review in that year.
The NAO noted that:
…there are major savings to be made by departments
and agencies if they can resolve more complaints and appeals at
the lowest possible levels of the 'ladder of redress', rather
than allowing complaints or appeal cases to progress up the system,
involving extra bodies and accumulating extra costs and delays
as they do so. [6]
10. Some complex complaints will inevitably require
the involvement of the Ombudsman or other complaint review bodies.
However, both the Ombudsman and the Healthcare Commission have
observed that many of the complaints that came to them could have
been dealt with effectively at an earlier stage. The Ombudsman
has reported on complaints "that should never have got as
far as [her]…because they were not handled properly at source".[7]
The Healthcare Commission noted that in around a third of the
cases it received, greater efforts could have been made by health
care providers to resolve the complaints.[8]
There are
clear economic arguments for resolving complaints as quickly as
possible. The earlier complaints are resolved, the cheaper it
is for everyone.
11. But handling complaints effectively is not just
about value for money. Crucially, it is about establishing a responsive
relationship between the apparatus of the state and the people
who use this apparatus. In this Report we consider in turn:
- how citizens know what they
can complain about and who they can complain to;
- arrangements for handling complaints within departments;
- how complaints are used by public services to
address problems and inform service design and delivery; and
- whether there is a role for a central government
body to issue guidance and hold departments to account for how
they handle complaints.
1 
