Navigation through the system
24. The distinction between complaints and appeals
is by no means the only difficulty faced by a member of the public
wondering how to raise a grievance. Public services are delivered
by state, private and third sector organisations on a national,
regional and local basis. The Government's recent policy review
documents outlined a continuing trend towards a "smaller
strategic centre" with "a greater diversity of providers".[19]
As the state commissions services from a wider array of organisations,
it becomes more difficult to understand complaints systems. It
can be a challenge simply to discover where first to complain,
and who to contact if matters cannot be resolved. As the Ombudsman
has reported:
Navigating through the system is not always easy
for people who want to complain about a service. There is a plethora
of complaints systems across public services and little in the
way of consistent standards for handling complaints, even within
some departments.[20]
25. To give an example, the Healthcare Commission
has informed us that "there are presently at least seven
possible avenues down which [health service] complaints can be
routed. Often it is only the most determined who have their case
fully considered".[21]
The British Medical Association (BMA) Patient Liaison Group and
Breakthrough Breast Cancer also raised concerns that "often
the complaints system fails at the first hurdle because patients
simply do not know where to turn, in particular where a patient
journey spans a number of providers"[22]
and that "the number of routes available to raise a complaint
may also lead to confusion for some service users who may not
feel they know the most appropriate route".[23]
26. In such a complex environment, if complaints
systems are to be truly accessible, more is needed than the provision
of information alone. As the British and Irish Ombudsman Association
(BIOA) state in their Guide to principles of good complaint
handling, "It is about proactively 'opening up'—widening
access, literally and metaphorically—for all kinds of people
who might not otherwise have the knowledge, confidence or ability
to complain".[24]
27. Lessons can be learnt from the private sector.
The NAO has explained how Midland Bank plc, prior to its acquisition
by HSBC in 1992:
…brought in a new ethic to 'compete on service',
in which complaints were seen as fundamental. At that time the
bank had a more glossy brochure than they do now, entitled 'We
want you to complain' as part of their campaign. The campaign
involved writing to every customer asking them to complain, a
process which engendered some 20,000 letters of complaint.[25]
28. Although this particular approach might not be
appropriate for public services, the principle holds good of making
information on how to complain widely available in a variety of
formats. These might include posters and comment cards in walk-in
centres; comment cards also included with correspondence; clear
guidance available by telephone; and easily accessible information
on internet sites.
29. The information on redress accessible on government
departments' and agencies' websites is variable in its standard,
according to the NAO. Although some websites were found to be
very good, there were "many sites where either no information
is available or it is stored in obscure PDF pages not accessible
via searching and often containing very formal and unwelcoming
text".[26]
30. Information on redress is also available through
the Government's online portal to its services—Directgov.[27]
However, the information it provides covers only high-level complaint
handlers, such as the Ombudsman. It provides no guidance on how
to pursue a complaint directly with a government department or
public service provider, simply noting that complaints should
first be made to the service provider directly.
31. Two other websites, one government-funded and
one independently run, show how more effective guidance might
be provided:
- consumerdirect.gov.uk is a
government-funded telephone and online service offering information
and advice on consumer issues. It is funded by the Office of Fair
Trading and delivered in partnership with Local Authority Trading
Standards Services.
- howtocomplain.co.uk is an independently run website
which provides information on how to complain not only to private
companies, but also to government departments and agencies. It
provides information about the various steps and levels of complaint
handling and gives contact details. It provides links to relevant
websites including that of the Ombudsman. It also includes a facility
to fill in a form that is sent directly to the appropriate organisation.
32. Both of these websites guide the user more effectively
through the actual step-by-step process of making a complaint.
As the
internet becomes an increasingly important means for communicating
with government departments and agencies, it is all the more important
that Directgov, the Government's online portal, should set out
complaints processes in a clear, accessible and comprehensive
manner.
33. Access to the internet is not universal, however,
and, as Professor Dunleavy told us, those without access to online
services can struggle to register a complaint:
…40 per cent of people still do not have internet
access and those people are particularly concentrated in groups
who are vulnerable or in some way disadvantaged—low-income
people, people on benefits and elderly people. They often find
it extremely difficult just to kick off a complaint or a request
for an appeal because they ring up numbers that they get from
the telephone book or the Citizens' Advice Bureau or some other
sort of line and then they get referred from pillar to post, 'That's
not us, we don't do that. We do complaints and you want an appeal',
all that kind of stuff. We did some mystery shopping for this
report with 20 departments and you had to be a pretty confident
and persistent person to get from a general enquiry point to being
able to make a complaint. Then, when we discussed that experience
with focus groups, there was considerable evidence that this was
quite a general experience, that, unless you had a piece of paper
with a specific number on it, it was very difficult to initiate
a complaint.[28]
34. The standard of service offered by government
call centres and the confusing array of telephone numbers listed
for government organisations is also well-documented.[29]
The Chairman of the Committee commissioned a small research project
on call centres within government, which is published with the
evidence to this Report.[30]
This demonstrated the plethora of ways in which service users
could contact HMRC, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
and the then Home Office. The DWP offered 41 different numbers
to call, and HMRC provided at least 54 national helplines. Having
such a variety of numbers to call can increase people's confusion
and make it difficult for them to navigate through the system
if it is not clear which one corresponds to their concern or complaint.
Furthermore, the research found that some helplines were distinctly
unhelpful: not one of the 30 calls made to the DWP's Crisis Loans
Direct number in March 2007, for instance, was answered.[31]
35. The recent report from Sir David Varney on Service
transformation recognises that:
…many calls by citizens or businesses originate
from a confused understanding of a government service or not knowing
which of the tens of thousands of published telephone numbers
can provide them with what they need. The issue becomes more acute
when the information spans the remit of several organisations
and when certain types of information can only be provided by
a specific department or agency. Analysis for this review by BT
Directory Enquiries found over 4,000 published numbers for HMRC,
DWP and Home Office alone and over 50,000 published numbers in
the public sector.[32]
36. Sir David recommended that "the public sector
should explore the scope for a single access number nationwide
for all non-emergency public services".[33]
This would, he claims, have benefits for both the citizen and
efficiency. The NAO report on redress similarly recommended that
the Government should consider "whether there is a value
for money case to provide citizens with a single point of contact
for impartial information on where to make a complaint or seek
redress, and if so, explore cost-effective options for doing so".[34]
37. The Government told us that they had not accepted
the NAO recommendation because they did not want to "create
another central point in addition to the Ombudsman because we
think that most of these things should be sorted out by the organisation
doing them".[35]
The Ombudsman was also not convinced, telling us that "the
last thing we need is to set up another huge organisation to deal
with complaints". She told us that "I suppose the slightly
flippant answer…is I thought that was my job", and she
raised concerns about the "expertise" and the "time,
money and energy" that would be needed to set up such an
organisation.[36]
38. We do not think that it is part of the Ombudsman's
job to act as a signposting service and to provide advice at the
earliest stages of a complaint, and we doubt it is a task she
would want. There remains a gap in the market.
39. The Government and Ombudsman are right that a
new central body to deal directly with complaints would be unwieldy,
ineffective and expensive. Individual organisations need to retain
responsibility for handling complaints about the services they
provide. We think, however, that there is a real need for a central
source of information and advice to guide citizens in their interaction
with government organisations. The system is too complex to expect
people to manage without guidance. Citizens deserve advice and
assistance in understanding where to turn to lodge an initial
complaint and how to do so effectively. The aim would not be to
replace or to compete with the Ombudsman, but would rather, in
the words of the NAO:
…give citizens clear information at the earliest
stage of launching a complaint, and direct them to the appropriate
starting point for handling their case. This may build on the
information that the Parliamentary Ombudsman's staff and others
already give to people who telephone their offices on how and
to whom they should take their complaint…Any such point should
not, however, become an extra step in the process that citizens
are obliged to use.[37]
40. A single information helpline would need to be
accompanied by a fully comprehensive online portal. Our predecessor
Committee called for a trial of such a service, which it suggested
might be called 'Public Services Direct', in its report on Choice,
Voice and Public Services.[38]
The need for a single access and advice point has grown with the
Government's commitment to providing a greater number of public
services through diverse providers. The existing Directgov website—which
has the strapline "Public services all in one place"
—is a good starting point, as it draws together information
on many public and local government services. As we noted earlier,
however, at present Directgov provides little practical guidance
for those wishing to make a complaint. Moreover, it is only available
as an online service; there is no telephone helpline, disadvantaging
those without internet access.
41. To provide useful guidance to those wishing to
make complaints about public services or government bodies, Public
Services Direct would need to gather together disparate information
on complaints processes across the public sector as a whole. People
should be able to consult a comprehensive website or call an advisory
phone line in order to get the help they need in making their
complaint. Complaints about the inaccessibility of particular
services, such as Crisis Loans Direct, could be recorded automatically—in
turn prompting service improvement without the need for individuals
to escalate their complaint proactively.
42. We agree
with Sir David Varney and the National Audit Office that the Government
should explore the scope for a common access point nationwide
for all non-emergency public services. This would provide a single
point of contact for impartial information on where to make a
complaint or seek redress. We restate our predecessor Committee's
recommendation in favour of just such a service—'Public
Services Direct'—which would offer an easy access, one-stop-shop
approach to a complex web of public services. Public Services
Direct should be both a gateway to government organisations and
services, and a source of basic advice to public service users.
It would act as the starting point for people unsure of how or
where to lodge their initial complaint, and would provide them
with the appropriate information and guidance.
9 
