Agenda item

Report of the Chief of Staff

6.1       The Committee considered a report that set out the Council’s Annual Complaints Review for 2015-16.  The report summarised the Council’s complaints performance (Complaint stages 1 and 2) and those complaints received by the Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO).  The report also contained, as an appendix, a copy of the Local Government Ombudsman Annual Letter/Review for the year ending 31 March 2016 and a copy of CityWest Homes Complaint Report for 2015-16.

6.2       Sue Howell, Complaints and Customer Manager, summarised the key headlines from the 2015-16 review.

6.3       The Committee was informed that only 18% of the stage 1 complaints were escalated to stage 2 and represents an improved performance (down 6%) compared to the previous year.  In 62% of the stage 2 complaints received the complainant did not cite specific fault with the stage 1 decision, and either requested a review without explaining why, or repeated the same complaint made at stage 1.  The analysis of stage 2 complaints revealed that there were no serious service failings in any of the complaints received. Only 6 stage 2 complaints were Upheld (6 of 163). Overall human error was the main factor in 5 of these complaints. 

6.4       The Committee was further informed that the findings of complaint decisions at stage 2 support a robust stage 1 process. Comprehensive stage 1 responses are being undertaken and any wrong doing put right at the first stage of the procedure.  There had been learning from complaints.  Measures had been implemented by Housing Benefit/Council Tax, which made up the largest volume of complaints, after analysing stage 1 complaint data.  A significant majority of housing benefit complaints were due to perceived delays in the assessment process.  In most cases additional outstanding information was required from the applicant before the application could be assessed.  Members commented that in the past the contractor was asked to prioritise speed over accuracy which resulted in assessment errors. The committee requested details of the verification process/specification for housing benefit applications.

6.5       The Committee noted the explanation in the report that the highest volume of complaints relate to finance (Housing Benefit, Council tax and business rates) but that complaint volume is not in itself a good indicator when trying to determine if a service area has been delivering good services. Whether Housing Benefit is awarded or whether a homeless application is accepted are very emotive concerns and therefore increases the likelihood of complaints being generated if customers consider the Council should be doing more whether the Council is at fault or not.  Members suggested that to more clearly reflect complaints relating to finance next year’s annual report should set out the finance related complaints by subject.

6.6       The report revealed that 28% of Council Tax stage 1 complaints upheld in 2015/16 were in relation to missing or miss-allocated Council Tax payments. The committee asked about the cause of this.  Ms Howell explained that some of the problems related to functionality issues within the Agresso system.  The particular problem had been corrected and the error should not re-occur.

6.7       With regard to Members correspondence, the committee noted that there had been a decrease in the volume of queries received over the year.  Members asked whether the figure related to all enquiries received from members. Ms Howell clarified that the figure was based on the level of correspondence which is responded to on a formal basis by the Cabinet Secretariat and Member Services team on behalf of Cabinet Members or Ward councillors.  At present there is no way to gather a record of all queries or complaints raised by elected members as many will be raised informally in electronic form.  Members questioned whether there may be an opportunity via Office 365 to aggregate such correspondence in future.  Officers undertook to take this away for investigation.

6.8       Ms Howell stated that with further benefit caps coming into effect this year the committee may have concerns that this may result in an increase in complaints to the Council by those affected by it.  She explained that as the policy was set by government the Council would not treat letters specifically protesting about the cap as a complaint. 

6.9       The committee then heard from Jonathan Cowie, Chief Executive, CityWest Homes, (CWH) regarding the formal complaints and local resolutions received by CWH for the year 2015/16.  It also received an update on a new complaints policy that was launched in April 2016 which will be used to improve service delivery. 

6.10    Mr Cowie informed members that following an independent review of the organisation in 2015 CWH had developed a five-year strategy and transformation plan which will modernise and simplify all aspects of service delivery.  Based on the results of satisfaction surveys there were three core services where the organisation was not performing as well as desired.  These were complaints, major works and antisocial behaviour. 

6.11    With regards to complaints, Mr Cowie explained that CWH had spent the last 12 months ensuring that it captured and analysed all complaints raised by residents to increase transparency on issues and to understand the root cause of concerns.  CWH would be comparing complaints data against other, similar organisations to identify levels of service excellence.  In respect of complaints performance this year, while there had been an increase in the number of stage 1 complaints being raised issues were being resolved faster than previously.  Additionally, the number of complaints escalated between stages 1 and 2 had reduced significantly from 29% to 10% which demonstrated the positive impact being made by the new complaints policy.  He further highlighted that whilst the highest number of complaints related to repairs this only equated to 0.6% complaints per volume of transactions.  Since the introduction of the new policy and approach satisfaction with complaint handling had also improved from 63% to 75%.  CWH wanted to see this rise up to 85%.  Mr Cowie advised that complaints performance data is reported to CWH board meetings and the City Council.

6.12    The Committee asked about the number of complaints being submitted to the housing ombudsman.  Jo Bowles, Director of the Shared Services, CWH advised that CWH would be undertaking some benchmarking to determine how the 8 to 10 cases that have been submitted to the ombudsman compared across the sector.  She further informed the Committee that approximately one third of the cases had been upheld by the ombudsman.  A senior team within CWH would be looking at these cases to understand what went wrong and to learn from them to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated.

6.13    The Committee noted that more MP and Councillor enquiries are received than recorded centrally as many enquiries go directly to individuals and this makes it harder to track the responses.  Ms Bowles explained that the housing management system used by CWH was not particularly sophisticated in compiling all of these enquiries.  CWH would be looking to see whether it could access the City Council’s new complaints database to better capture this information.

6.14    Members asked how CWH was monitoring complaints relating to the subletting of leaseholder properties through Airbnb.  Mr Cowie stated that CWH was currently experiencing difficulties in capturing this information as many residents do not formally complain but raise the issues in local estate offices.  It would be asking residents to formally submit their concerns in writing so that they can be captured and recorded.  He was aware that there are concerns on the Churchill Estate about properties being sub-let through Airbnb. Residents are particularly concerned about security.  CWH are concerned about how those renting properties are gaining access to its estates and obtaining key fobs.  Officers were referred to the fact that there are provisions in CWH long leases that restrict subletting.  Members had concerns that by doing so residents could invalidate the Council’s insurance policies and place it at risk of irrecoverable claims in the event that damage occurs.  Mr Cowie was asked to provide a note to the committee on this matter.

6.15    RESOLVED: That the information contained in the Annual Complaint Review 2015-16 be noted.

6.16    ACTIONS:

1.    The committee would like details of the verification system that is used by Capita to process housing benefit and council tax applications. (Action for: Martin Hinckley, Head of Shared Services)

2.    CWH monitoring of Airbnb complaints - how will CWH formally capture concerns about the short term letting of CWH residential property through Airbnb?  What are the insurance policy implications for the Council if leaseholders sublet their properties?  (Action for: Jonathan Cowie, Chief Executive/Jo Bowles, Director of Shared Services, CWH)

3.   Where/to whom should councillors send queries or complaints regarding CWH?  (Action for: Jonathan Cowie/Jo Bowles)

4.   CWH Complaints Performance Reports - The Committee would like copies of reports provided to the CWH Board and Westminster City Council so that they can have an oversight of trends.  (Action for: Jonathan Cowie/Jo Bowles)