Previous chapter | Next chapter | Contents page
	Chapter 4 Background to reviewing complaints
	What is 'complaints review'? 4.1 In this guide, 'complaints review' means an arrangement for reviewing individual complaints or complaints systems that is separate from line management. How you achieve this will depend on the circumstances and business of your organisation and the needs of your users. In some cases, you will be able to do it through an independent reviewer from outside your organisation. In other cases, you may need to use a senior manager from within your organisation who has not been involved in the decisions leading to the complaint. 4.2 Your arrangements may involve: investigating individual complaints, including studying the case papers and any other issues the user has raised - for example as carried out by the Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency; reviewing your procedures for handling complaints - for example as carried out by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Complaints Audit Committee; or both. 4.3 You will find some examples of public service complaints review arrangements in Annex A. These show the range of options available. Other examples are shown in boxes throughout this part of the guide. Why have complaints review? 4.4 When things go wrong, you should deal with complaints as quickly as possible to satisfy the person who has complained. The best way to do this is through front-line staff using effective internal complaints procedures, as set out in the first part of this guide. But not everyone will be happy with the first reply to his or her complaint, or believe that it has been investigated fairly. This belief will be strengthened if the only route for solving problems is through the line management of the person or section complained about. Complaints review arrangements that involve an independent investigation help to show users that you take complaints seriously and aim to deal with them fairly. 4.5 Most public services come within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Health Service Commissioner or the Local Government Ombudsmen. These ombudsmen play an important role as the completely independent part of the public service complaints system. 4.6 In 1995, however, the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force reported that people felt there was a gap between internal investigations by line management and the ombudsmen. Public services should not create layers of investigation that simply become an obstacle course. But those that have already set up their own complaints review arrangements have found them useful. These arrangements also increase the choice available to users. If your organisation is not covered by the ombudsmen scheme, you should give special consideration to your complaints review arrangements. What to call your complaints review arrangements 4.7 The important thing is not so much what you call the people or offices reviewing your complaints, but that your staff and users: are aware of them; understand their role; and know how to contact them. 4.8 You should use a name that gives an accurate impression of the role. Possible names include: complaints reviewer; adjudicator (although this can imply legal powers); investigator; or examiner. 4.9 It depends on the person's role. In this guide we have used 'reviewer' to cover all the options above. It can refer to a person or a group of people. 4.10 You should not use the word 'ombudsman' to describe your complaints reviewer, as this may cause confusion between your arrangements and the statutory ombudsmen. If you feel 'ombudsman' is the only suitable word for your reviewer, you should make sure that any publicity about them distinguishes them clearly from the statutory ombudsman.
	Previous chapter | Next chapter | Contents page