To inform the committee of performance in the areas of complaints, data incidents and requests for information made to the council over the municipal year 2024/25.

The Information Governance Manager (IGM) introduced the report. The following points were highlighted:

1. 789 Freedom of Information (FOI) and 196 Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) requests had been dealt with by the Council during the municipal year.
2. 96.4% of requests were answered within the statutory 20 working days and exceeded the councils target rate of 95% compliance.
3. The volume of requests remained steady and was felt to be attributed by the disclosure log detailing past requests and responses.
4. 2 cases were referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). In 1 case the ICO upheld the council’s decision and in the other confirmed previously withheld information should be disclosed.
5. 189 subject access requests were actioned at a response rate of 64% (below the set target of 95%). It was highlighted that these requests were often very complex and resource heavy to respond to.
6. 80 requests made by the police in relation to criminal investigations had been received.
7. 288 data security incidents were reported to the team; the fact the number of breaches were high was not necessarily a cause for concern and was likely from a high level of staff awareness due to mandatory training processes in place for reporting such issues and an open culture around reporting things which have gone wrong.

In response to committee questions, it was noted:

1. Data is monitored each month which showed no recurrent pattern of any one directorate missing targets.
2. The information governance team is made up of 10 officers.

The Complaints and Children’s Rights Manager (CCRM) informed the committee that:

1)    560 corporate complaints were processed, an increase from the previous year at 483. It was noted this was not reflective of all complaints received as many are dealt with as business as usual.

2)    The children and young people and corporate services directorates experienced decreases in complaints.

3)    The Community Well-being directorate had seen an increase in complaints from 66 to 91, the service was collaborating closely with the director and senior managers to look at trends and how they could support in responding to their complaints.

4)    The Economy and Environment directorate received 252, which was not surprising given the number of services dealt with within the directorate.

5)    Although overall there was an increase in complaints, it was not felt to be a cause for concern as the complaints procedure was much more accessible, the council having been selected by the ombudsman and piloted the new complaint handling codes.

6)    The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) had received 55 communications from Herefordshire members of the public, an increase from previous year but not surprising with the adoption of the new complaint handling code which signposts complaints to the ombudsman at every stage.

7)    Of the complains investigated, the LGSCO upheld 2 cases which was found the council to have caused fault and injustice.

8)    79 complaints were made under the children’s complaints and representations policy of which 23 were taken to the LGSCO for review. The LGSCO found the council to have caused fault and injustice in 7 cases and suggested financial redress.

In response to committee questions, it was noted:

1. The financial implications of statutory complaints gone on to stages 2 and 3 had increased significantly over the last 3 years, this was due to the number of complaints received and that these stages incurred additional cost in utilising an investigatory officer and independent persons.
2. Independent persons are commissioned on the recommendation of other local authorities and would have a background of working in areas where they would understand the detail, depth, procedure of children's services complaints and case work such as social workers and the police.

1. The team were working on internal procedures to target the number of complaints being submitted such as offering a “resolution meeting” with the relevant officer to discuss their concerns in the hope an internal resolution could be reached. The quality assurance team were now providing responses, and a mediation meeting is also offered. It was felt that these measures would give enough opportunity for the local authority to resolve the concerns that have been raised and prevent further escalation to stages 2 and 3.
2. The complaints procedure does not cover compensation. When money is paid out to a complainant this is a gesture of goodwill or if the ombudsman had suggested the complaint be remedied in that way.
3. Data showing where significant number of complaints are received where departments have failed to return a lessons learnt form, are to be included in future reports.
4. The CCRM’s team including herself is made up of 5 officers. The process followed when a complaint is first received was explained.
5. Data on repeat complainants is not held as each complaint regardless of who it comes from is treated on its own merit.
6. Complainants are asked in the first stages if any reasonable adjustments need to be considered. If a complainant is identified as needing an advocate, the case would be put on hold until one was assigned. The process for allocating an advocate through “onside advocacy” was explained.

The committee noted the report.

1. Action 2025/26-03: The CCRM to include data showing where significant number of complaints are received where departments have failed to return a lessons learnt form are to be included in future reports.