Agenda item

(CPT 10-16)

Purpose: To report on the statutory complaints process for the year 1^st April 2009 to 31^st March 2010.

Resolved that Children’s Social Care Complaints Report be received and its recommendations agreed in preparation for its public presentation.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 8 April 2011, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the statutory complaints process for the year 1^st April 2009 to 31^st March 2010. Local authorities were required to publish an annual report in order to keep the local authority informed about the operation of its complaints procedure. Along with the corporate complaints process local authorities were required to have a specific complaints process for Children’s Social Care matters. The complaints process was split into three stages:

Stage 1 – issues were investigated and a response provided, usually by the Team Manager;

Stage 2 – formal investigation, usually by an external person, with the provision of a written report;

Stage 3 – appeal to an external body of three independent people following which a report would be provided. The Director would then respond to the complainant enclosing the panel report.

The majority of complaints were dealt with at Level 1. However, in 2009/10 the numbers of complaints at Stage 1 had dropped from 86 to 48, Stage 2 had remained static at one and there had been no Stage 3 complaints as was the case in the previous year. The drop in numbers overall was a consequence of the increased efficiency of dealing with issues as they arose.

Councillor Lundie reported that the main areas for complaints had been around the attitude of staff which had risen to 12 in 2009/10 from 3 in 2008/09. However, this had been due to the fact that staff had challenged parents increasingly and only one of those complaints had been upheld.

Complaints provided an essential mechanism for shaping services to meet the needs of service users in order to prevent complaints from arising again. Having discussions with difficult parents at the beginning had helped the process and Councillor Lundie felt that the service was working well.

Councillor Alan Macro commended Officers and staff in the reduction of the number of complaints but was concerned about the length of time it had taken for the report to be presented to the Executive. Councillor Lundie had met with the Officer as he had also been concerned about the delay. The report could only be closed off when the final complaint of that year had been resolved and this could take a further 4 months. The Officer who dealt with complaints also had responsibility for Access to Records requests. These requests involved huge amounts of record retrieval and copying and third party agreement and had statutory timescales which had to be adhered to. Priority had been given to this area of work and therefore the annual complaints report had been delayed.

Councillor Gabrielle McGarvey referred to the three housing related complaints in 2009/10 and queried whether there was an issue although it was recognised that two of those complaints were not upheld. Margaret Goldie responded that one of the complaints had been passed on to Housing to formally consider, and the other two were about how the client felt that the Social Worker was not doing enough to help them obtain housing. Neither of those two complaints were justified as young people were encouraged and supported to do certain of the tasks to move on to independent living for themselves. Therefore the level of expectation of the service user was higher than the service provider.

RESOLVED that the report be received and its recommendations agreed in preparation for its public presentation.

Reason for the decision: Local authorities must each financial year publish an annual report in order to keep the local authority informed about the operation of its complaints procedure. The report should be ‘presented to staff, the relevant local authority committee, and to the regulator and general public’.

Other options considered: None.