Independent review
58. Complaints systems in most public services allow
complainants to appeal internally at least once, before involving
an external body in the review of a decision. Effective internal
review increases the likelihood of local-level resolution of a
complaint—which, as we have observed, is more convenient
and cost-effective for all parties concerned.[51]
Where a complaint cannot be resolved by the organisation concerned,
however, it is important that complainants have recourse to independent
review of their concerns.
59. Across the whole of government, it is the function
of the Ombudsman to act as the ultimate independent arbiter of
complaints about government administration and public services.
There are also an increasing number of independent, or quasi-independent,
complaint review bodies to which complainants can turn before
raising matters with the Ombudsman. These intermediate or second-tier
complaint handlers exist particularly where the Ombudsman receives
a large number of complaints about an organisation. They include:
- The Adjudicator's Office,
which investigates complaints about HMRC, the Valuation Office
Agency, the Public Guardianship Office and the Insolvency Service.
- The Healthcare Commission,
which at present is responsible for reviewing complaints about
the National Health Service (NHS) or independent healthcare services
that have not been resolved at local level. From April 2009, however,
the Healthcare Commission will no longer have a role in complaints
handling, as complaints processes for health and social care will
be brought together and the system streamlined to emphasise local
resolution of complaints.[52]
- The Independent Case Examiner,
who reviews complaints about DWP bodies including the Child Support
Agency, the Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus.
- The Independent Complaints Reviewer,
who investigates complaints about a range of organisations including
the Audit Commission, the Charity Commission, the Housing Corporation,
the National Archives and the Land Registry.
60. Independent complaint handling bodies operate
by receiving complaints directly from complainants and then seeking
a response from the organisation complained about. They try to
resolve complaints as quickly as possible, often using informal
mediation, and can carry out some form of investigation to identify
the merits of any case before arriving at a conclusion. They then
have the ability to feed the outcomes of broader findings back
to the organisations involved, and often work with an organisation
on systemic problems which they are well-placed to discover.
[53]
61. Intermediate complaint review bodies tend to
be appropriate in certain circumstances: where there are large
numbers of individuals that would otherwise take cases all the
way to the Ombudsman service, and where there are high uphold
rates for such cases. In other situations, having a separate complaint
review body would not be proportionate. There would be little
point in a complaint handling body that dealt with just one or
two complaints a year.
62. In some cases, the existence of intermediate
complaint reviewers can actually preclude public service providers
from resolving complaints effectively at the local level. In relation
to health complaints, the Department of Health has observed: "It
is arguable that providing an independent stage through a separate
organisation has worked against effective resolution of complaints
at local level because NHS organisations are aware that the Healthcare
Commission will undertake the work".[54]
63. Equally, however, complaint resolution processes
must be credible and have the confidence of the people using them.
This often requires that those reviewing complaints be independent
from the organisation that is being complained about. The Ombudsman,
in evidence provided to our predecessor Committee about NHS complaints,
noted that there needed to be "a credible system that
has the confidence of service users and of NHS staff that it can
assess each case independently and impartially" [her emphasis].[55]
Second-tier complaint review bodies can serve an important function
in providing this assurance that people's complaints will be treated
independently as well as expertly.
64. For the
public to have confidence in systems for complaint resolution,
there must be robust and independent processes for dealing with
complaints. We believe that for areas where large numbers of complaints
are made and upheld, the existence of independent intermediate
complaint handlers is crucial to ensuring the credibility of complaint
resolution systems in government.
65. Intermediate complaint review bodies are, as
the name suggests, not the end of the story. If complainants are
still not happy with the outcome, or where an intermediate tier
does not exist, they can ask the Parliamentary Ombudsman to review
their case. The continued existence of the 'MP filter' means that
there is no direct access to the Ombudsman service—complainants
must ask their MP to forward their complaint.
66. Clearly, the 'ladder of complaints' for some
organisations can be fairly complex. To take HMRC as an example:
- HMRC recommends as a first
step "a phone call to the person or office you have been
dealing with". [56]
- If this does not produce a satisfactory result,
the complainant can contact the complaints manager in the office
that they have been dealing with.
- If the complainant is unhappy with this review
of the matter, they can ask for it to be reviewed by a senior
officer not involved in the case up to that point.
- If the complainant is still unhappy they can
contact the Adjudicator to review the case.
- They can also, at any time, ask their Member
of Parliament to take up their case, or refer the complaint to
the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, however, will normally
expect a complaint to have been considered already by HMRC internally
and by the Adjudicator before she will take it up.
67. Likewise, for agencies of the Department for
Work and Pensions complaints are dealt with initially by staff
at local level. Complainants can then escalate a complaint to
line management as necessary. If they are still unsatisfied they
can raise the case directly with the Business Chief Executive,
and then appeal to the Independent Case Examiner.[57]
Finally, the Ombudsman can consider the case if it is referred
to her by a Member of Parliament.
68. Although
necessary in some circumstances, the existence of multi-tiered
complaint processes does increase the complexity of the system—potentially
adding to the confusion of prospective complainants. This reinforces
our earlier point that clear information and guidance need to
be made available from a central point to assist people through
the complaints process.
39 
