The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales

Evaluation of the Commission's Complaints Pilot 2008 - Customer Service

(March 2009)

You can also view the full colour PDF version of the Evaluation of the Commission's Complaints Pilot 2008.

Contents

A. Introduction

The Commission’s new Complaints and Customer Feedback procedure was launched by Customer Service on 2 January 2008. The new procedure was the result of our extensive review of the pre-existing procedure, including an analysis of its effectiveness and the resources required to deliver it. When drawing up the new procedure, Customer Service benchmarked with other complaint-handlers, including those in the charity and public sectors, and also consulted its own Customer Network. The draft procedure was subjected to a Compact-compliant 13 week period of public consultation, which elicited responses from a range of organisations including the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). Principles and guidance emerging from the PHSO’s work in 2007 were built into the new system.

Aspects of the new complaint-handling regime were significantly different from previous systems, and Customer Service agreed to complete a formal evaluation after the initial period of operation to ensure it delivered the planned benefits and would be fit for purpose in the long term.

The pilot ended on 31 December 2008. This report summarises the full evaluation report which was presented to the Commission’s Board in March 2009. We are publishing it to show how our complaints procedure was used during the pilot period and what the results were.

B. Background

The Commission handles a huge volume of enquiries and casework each year. In Charity Services alone 60,000 items of post, 221,000 telephone calls and emails and 57,000 queries were handled during 2007-08. The Commission also received 1,338 unsolicited compliments about its work in the same period. Year-on-year, complaints have constituted a very low proportion of customer contact.

However, the Commission takes each of these complaints seriously, evaluating thoroughly the services we provide to our customers, applying remedies where needed and ensuring lessons learnt are taken into account across the organisation. All this requires a robust, fit-for-purpose complaints procedure.

In 2006, Customer Service recognised a gap had emerged between the types of issues complained about by customers and the scope of the then complaints procedure. Complaints could be raised about the standard of service users had received; but the majority of complaints appeared to relate to the outcome1 of cases and there was no scope to review these.

C. Principal Aims

The principal aims of the new procedure were to:

  • provide higher levels of resolution closer to the point of the complaint;
  • streamline the process and make it easier to use;
  • widen the options for complaining to better meet the needs of customers – adding the option for a review of case outcomes; and to
  • provide a quicker, more resource-effective process.

D. Key changes to procedure

  • Reduced stages of formal complaint evaluation - reducing the three stages of internal complaint handling to two, making the procedure quicker and easier to use and less resource-intensive, for both the customer and the Commission.
  • Local Resolution - Enhanced emphasis on seeking to resolve dissatisfaction at the point of origin. The business team dealing with the matter would nominate a senior office to carry out an impartial review of the complainant’s concerns.
  • Outcome Review - For the first time, the Commission’s procedure provided the option for customers to have the outcome of their case reviewed – by an Outcome Review Panel. Through this process, a panel of suitably experienced staff would review a case to decide whether it had been conducted satisfactorily and / or whether further action was required.

Because we wanted to ensure there was no confusion between this procedure and the Decision Review procedure for challenges to our legal decisions, we defined an outcome as the course of action within, or the end result of, a case which arose through operational discretion within case-working.

The Outcome Review Panel was not intended to review in great depth the minutiae of each case, but to provide an overview of substantive outcomes and decide whether the Commission’s actions had been reasonable, legitimate, proportionate and consistent. The panel reviews:

  • whether the actions or outcome of a case had been a reasonable response to the facts and circumstances (even, importantly, if it did not represent the best possible outcome for the customer);
  • whether the Commission was entitled to take and make the actions or decisions it did;
  • if the Commission’s use of resources was in keeping with the facts and circumstances, considering the nature of the complaint and the likelihood and level of perceived risk; and
  • whether the casework was consistent with any other known cases of a similar nature.

A complainant could access the Outcome Review Panel if they remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of a Local Resolution.

  • Standard of Service Complaint – Taken from the pre-existing procedure, this element allowed for a full complaint examination by a Customer Service Manager, if a customer felt they had received poor service. This was defined as largely about the way in which the Commission had responded and the customer’s experience of that response, and included areas such as timeliness, responsiveness, professional courtesy, tone of responses and so on. The aim was that examination reports would be shorter and more user-friendly.
  • Restated categories of complaint - The procedure was very clear that a complaint could be raised about any area of dissatisfaction although fresh categories were created for the purposes of monitoring complaint trends and outcomes.
  • Other Changes - A range of fresh approaches were intrinsic to Customer Service’s delivery of the new procedure. These included:
    • a deliberate emphasis on ensuring that the responses to customers demonstrated the thoroughness and fairness used when reviewing a complaint;
    • a willingness to be more critical of the Commission’s services to ensure that remedies were offered and lessons learned before the complaint went to external review either by the Commission’s Independent Complaint Reviewer (ICR) or the PHSO;
    • less bureaucratic and more succinct written correspondence to show clearer empathy with the customer, regardless of the complaint outcome;
    • more verbal or face-to-face contact where this was seen to be helpful; and
    • recognition of the need for flexible approaches within the procedure’s scope to allow for the specific circumstances of each case and encourage innovation in improving complainants’ satisfaction.

A flowchart of the procedure is attached at the end of this report.

E. Highlights

The evaluation exercise found that:

  • the new procedure has offered a range of benefits and greater choice to those dissatisfied with the Commission’s services;
  • an extremely small number of cases result in complaints;
  • higher levels of complaint resolution have been achieved with fewer cases escalated at each stage of the procedure;
  • 69 complaints were recorded by business teams with 57% resolved at the initial stage;
  • 30 cases were escalated for consideration by Customer Service during the pilot, compared to a total of 43 cases in 2007-08;
  • 12 complaints (40%) related to the standard of service provided by the Commission, with the remaining 18 complaints (60%) being Outcome Reviews about dissatisfaction with the case outcome;
  • in total, 88 complaint issues were raised by complainants; 59 (67%) were not upheld, 18 (20%) were partially upheld and 11 (13%) were fully upheld on review;
  • the procedure has helped organisational learning; a total of 29 learning points and 19 recommendations were made to business teams during the pilot compared to 7 of each in 2007-08;
  • three complaints arising during the pilot were taken to the Commission’s Independent Complaint Reviewer by service-users; the only complaint concluded by the ICR to date was upheld;
  • Outcome Review cases are being conducted within anticipated timescales. However, Standard of Service reviews are taking double the amount of working days anticipated;
  • information about customer satisfaction with the Outcome Review process is inconclusive due to low numbers completing the feedback; and
  • the procedure should continue substantively in its existing format: only minor revisions are required to finalise it.

F. Summary Figures

There were no combined Standard of Service and Outcome Review Panel cases arising during the year

More detail follows for each element of the complaint procedure.

F1. Local Resolution

A total of 69 Local Resolutions took place in 2008. The table above demonstrates their origin. The larger numbers arose in Compliance and Specialist Casework which, given the complex cases handled in these divisions, was expected.

Of the 69 cases subject to Local Resolution only 30 were escalated, indicating a high resolution rate at the first formal stage of complaint consideration of at least 57%.

Case Study: A Local Resolution was carried out in Compliance, when a customer was dissatisfied with the way in which an investigation was being carried out. The customer had been the subject of the inquiry, as it had been alleged that he (and his family) had been receiving a personal benefit from the charity. The customer also felt that he was being unduly pressurised by the inquirer.

 

The Local Resolution was carried out by the inquirer's line-manager, and was broken down into several parts. The manager set out the background to how the Commission generally carries out formal inquiries, noting that the inquirer would have been appointed by the Commission. He then moved on to the facts of the case, and explained why the inquirer had taken the actions that he had. However, the Local Resolution was robust in that it also made the point that the customer had not co-operated as well as he might with the investigation.

 

The complainant appears to have accepted the conclusions reached by the Local Resolution since he did not escalate his complaint.

F2. Outcome Review Panel

There were 18 Outcome Review Panel cases concluded during the period with the panel sitting on nine occasions.

Cases frequently included several complaint issues so there were a total of 48 issues within these cases. Overall, 28 issues (58%) were not overturned, meaning that the panel felt that the case outcomes had been reasonable, legitimate, consistent and proportionate. Eight issues (17%) were wholly overturned and 12 issues (25%) were partially overturned meaning that the panel had identified shortcomings in the original case work.

The most common case occurring during the year - a growing trend, and different from previous years - involved customers complaining about charities who felt that the Commission had not been sufficiently concerned and had not undertaken an appropriate level of regulation. In other words - disagreement regarding the application of proportionality.

16 recommendations arose from Outcome Review Panel cases and the various panels offered 26 Learning Points to business teams.

Case studies: A complainant belonged to one group within a two-sided dispute over the future direction of a charity and the validity of trustees. The case had dragged on for several years and the charity was unable to make key decisions and progress its plans. The complainant asserted that the Commission had been incorrect to discontinue its intervention, leaving the charity to its own devices, and should have recognised his group as the validly-elected trustees. The Outcome Review Panel concluded that the Commission had acted appropriately, had been correct not to determine that the trustees had been validly appointed and that this message had been consistently stated. Whilst the Commission had sought to mediate between the two sides, the continuing reluctance of trustees to collaborate had hampered resolution. The panel reiterated the Commission’s previous offer to assist in the process of achieving validly-elected trustees. This was declined. However, subsequent to the Outcome Review Panel members of one group stood back, allowing valid elections to take place, supported by the Commission and the charity was able to move forward with its business plan.

 

In another instance, the Outcome Review Panel considered a case where the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to take action when she had advised them that a charity had sold a property at below market values and outside of the permissible procedures. The Outcome Review Panel concluded that the Commission had taken thorough action to investigate the sale of the property, and the conclusion that the sale had been in order was correct. However, it was the panel’s view that the Commission had not fully explained to the complainant the extent and quality of the casework it had performed and offered a learning point to the business about how outcome letters could be more positive and expansive about the casework that had taken place.

F3. Standard of Service

A total of 12 cases were completed during 2008 representing a significant drop compared to previous years. Comparing 12 month periods for 2006-07 and 2007-08, there were 49 and 43 cases examined respectively. This supports Customer Service’s experience that a significant number of complainants are concerned about the outcome of their case, as opposed to the standard of service provided, meaning that that the new procedure has, as intended, delivered something fresh and valuable to Commission customers.

Three recommendations arose from Standard of Service cases and three Learning Points were offered to business teams.

Of the cases examined, three were fully upheld (25%) and four (33%) were partially upheld. This compares to 32% fully or partially upheld in 2005-06 and 28% fully or partially upheld in 2006-07.

Again, each Standard of Service complaint contained more than one issue, and a total of 40 issues were examined within the cases.

Case study: A complaint was received about the distress caused by the Commission sending a standard mailing letter to a trustee for a charity with which that person had no association.

 

Information Compliance Division sent a reminder to a church-based charity to submit its annual return and accounts. In taking this forward, Information Compliance needed to contact the first named trustee listed on the Commission’s database to provide new correspondent details to update the Register of Charities.

 

In preparing a template letter for the trustee, the name and registered number of a lesbian and gay charity was added by mistake and mailed to the church trustee. He was upset and distressed by this error. The Commission’s Information Compliance Manager apologised for the mistake. The trustee also sought compensation. However, it was considered that, regrettable though this mistake was, a further apology for the distress he felt was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

G. Timescales

It was not possible to determine the average length of time taken to conclude Local Resolution cases although the target is 20 working days.

The average time-lapse for concluding a Standard of Service examination was 40 working days from agreement of summary. This is double the intended 20 day turnaround, a common event for complaint examinations over previous years. Complaint cases often continue on a highly iterative basis with the complainant, even once a summary of complaint is agreed, with further evidence submitted mid-case which extends the time required for analysis by Customer Service. On average, Standard of Service complaints each required 37 working hours to conclude.

Outcome Review Panel cases were designed to be concluded within a maximum of 40 working days. The average turnaround time was 34 days with 10 and 55 days representing the shortest and longest cases respectively. In practice, many of the cases reviewed by the panel resulted from years of ongoing casework, with extensive information to be considered. The average amount of hours required per case has been 47 with 17 hours being the minimum and 93 the maximum. The shortest deliberation time at panel has been around 10 minutes and the longest about 90 minutes. We also found that time taken to complete follow up actions added to the time before customers could be notified of the panel’s decision which did, on occasion, exceed the target of 7 days.

H. The role of the Independent Complaints Reviewer

At the same time as the new procedure was launched, the Commission entered into a new contract with its ICR. The agreement reached with the ICR was that where cases related to the standard of service delivered, these would undergo the classic review, looking at all aspects of case-working and compliance with policies and standards, throughout the duration of the case. Where the complainant opted for an Outcome Review, the ICR‘s examination would restrict itself to a review of the administration of the Outcome Review Panel but not its decisions.

Cases, so far, have been handled by the ICR in line with the Commission’s intentions, although the sample size is too small to draw any trends or conclusions from.

As was intended with the new procedure, far fewer cases have proceeded through every stage of review, and to examination by the Commission’s ICR. The Commission will be monitoring trends to ensure that this information can be used to help shape the independent reviewing service when it is next due for renewal in 2011.

Alongside the other cases reviewed by the ICR, three arose from the piloted procedure. Two cases are still under consideration, and the Independent Complaints Reviewer was critical of the Commission in the one concluded case to date.

Case Study: A complainant (a charity employee) had complained about financial irregularities within a charity as well as having concerns about its governance, the treatment of staff and support to vulnerable beneficiaries. The Outcome Review Panel concluded that several of the issues were of concern and of potential gravity and that the Assessment Unit had closed the case prematurely. The Outcome Review Panel recommended that a further assessment be made, with the case to be referred on to Mainstream division for action. The Assessment Unit did not perceive the recommendation to be binding and handled the case in line with their standard procedures, responding meanwhile to further information received from the charity’s trustees and closing their case again. Because Assessments considered that the outstanding issues related to governance concerns they were not passed on to another division. Ultimately, a multi-disciplinary case conference, convened by Customer Service, agreed that there should be a visit to the charity by Specialist Casework to provide advice and guidance to the charity on their governance. By then, however, the complainant was disappointed that there had been insufficient action against the charity as anticipated from the conclusions of the Outcome Review Panel and the case was taken to the ICR. The ICR found that the Commission had experienced teething problems within the new procedure and that there had been a lack of comprehension about how it should work which led to a failure in service to the complainants. The Commission paid consolation in respect of the shortfall in service which resulted from the confusion at this early stage in the pilot.

 

As a result of this case the ICR recommended that:

 

  • The Commission review the terms of reference for the Outcome Review Panel to ensure they are clear on which panel outcomes are binding and which have an element of discretion. (This was actioned as part of the evaluation process.)
  • Customer expectations are appropriately managed through effective communication by the Commission (Actioned, with enhanced materials planned for those using the procedure.)

No cases have so far been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

I. Customer Satisfaction

As part of the pilot, a post-complaint questionnaire was sent out to all complainants whose cases were considered by the Outcome Review Panel seeking to ascertain whether the Outcome Review Panel, as a new procedure, delivered reasonable levels of customer satisfaction.

Only three of the 18 forms were completed. Customer feedback from complainants at the end of the process is generally very poor and this was echoed in the responses received. Whilst the sample is clearly too small to analyse in any meaningful way, Customer Service will continue to seek feedback from all users of this service.

J. Diversity

The complaints procedure has been used by complainants from a range of backgrounds, covering a broad and diverse set of issues, although complaints about faith-based charities, educational or service-providing charities have featured most prominently. Complainants have represented both genders and a variety of ethnic origins and religions. There is no evidence that any one sector or group is disproportionately represented.

Two complaints included allegations of racial discrimination. Of these one was not upheld and the complainant discontinued the other. Bias featured in a further five complaints but none were upheld.

Adjustments were also made to the procedure where this was helpful to complainants, such as attending with a member of the Faith and Social Cohesion Unit or ‘pausing’ the process due to a complainant’s ill-health.

K. Benefits

The new procedure for handling complaints, coupled with the new cultural approaches, has delivered many benefits:

  • there are fewer formal stages for customers and Commission to navigate, streamlining the process, making it easier and reducing stress for customers;
  • a high proportion of complaints have been resolved early on with fewer cases escalated at each stage;
  • the procedure better meets customers’ needs with the new option of Outcome Review;
  • the panel approach enhances the integrity and robustness of the process, and there has been close consensus from panel members about review conclusions;
  • there are enhanced opportunities for customers to explain their concerns in person;
  • more complaints have been upheld;
  • customers have received better explanations of case outcomes;
  • there is greater consistency in the application of complaint procedures and enhanced complaint-handling skills within the Commission;
  • the procedure provides definitive, time-limited closure at each stage;
  • fewer cases are escalated from each stage of the procedure; and.
  • there are improved opportunities for organisational learning.

L. Disadvantages

  • There was some initial resistance to the Outcome Review Panel from staff who were concerned that it would interfere with their due business processes, but this will continue to diminish over time as the process beds in further;
  • a minority of teams struggle to find independent staff to conduct Local Resolutions;
  • some complaints have taken longer to complete than originally envisaged;
  • not all complaints slot neatly into the procedure

M. Changes to the Final Procedure / Next Steps

As a result of the formal evaluation, the procedure will be adopted with a few minor changes:

  • Further modules will be added to cover specific scenarios which require a different approach such as complaints about inquiry work or staff misconduct;
  • timescales for concluding standard of service complaints will be extended to 30 working days;
  • completion times for all Local Resolutions will be routinely recorded and monitored in future;
  • timescales for notifying conclusions from Outcome Review Panels will be extended to 12 working days;
  • Customer Service will be developing guidelines on remedy and redress during 2009–10.

N. Conclusion

The preparation of this evaluation report marks the end of many months of intense activity for Customer Service - designing, implementing, experimenting with and reviewing the new procedures.

The new procedure has delivered clear benefits for complainants and also for staff and has achieved virtually all of its principal aims. It offers more accurate routes for handling the types of complaints routinely received by the Commission and greater choice for complainants. More complaints have been resolved without recourse to every stage of internal or external complaint. The percentage of cases upheld or overturned is higher than under the previous policy which demonstrates fairer outcomes for complainants.

The pilot period has provided a valuable opportunity for the Commission’s business teams to adjust to new procedure and has enabled us to identify further changes that can build on the procedure in the future to enhance its effectiveness. A further review will be programmed for 2011 to ensure that it remains contemporary and fit for purpose.

If you would like to know more about the Commission’s Complaints and Customer Feedback procedure or the Customer Service Team, please contact;

Jeanna Pearce
Head of Customer Service
Charity Commission Direct
PO Box 1227
Liverpool L69 3UG

Email
Tel: 0845 300 0218

Appendix 1

The Complaints Procedure

 

1. Previously, outcomes could be challenged only if they were legal decisions susceptible to review within the Decision Review procedure.