To brief the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee on the development, management and learning arising from complaints and compliments.

The Complaints and Children's Rights Manager, Head of Service Safeguarding and Review and Corporate Director Children and Young People provided an overview and briefing on the development, management and learning arising from complaints and compliments.

The Chair invited comments and discussion from the committee in relation to the report. The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

1. Question: What were the complaint response times?
Answer: Complaints were acknowledged within three working days; full investigations, including reviews and interviews, must be completed with a written response within 20 working days.

2. Question: How was independence ensured in investigations?
Answer: Stage 1 complaints were handled by independent Quality Assurance Practitioners, not case teams, and all responses were checked by senior managers.

3. Question: When would the website and policy be updated?
Answer: The revised policy awaited CLT approval and would be uploaded with the 2024-25 Annual Report once signed off.

4. Question: How was public trust being improved?
Answer: Increased engagement showed greater confidence in services; feedback and complaints informed continuous learning.

5. Question: Why had complaint numbers dropped?
Answer: Fewer complaints reflected success in restorative practice, resolving issues earlier through communication.

6. Question: Were corporate complaints included?
Answer: Yes, both statutory and corporate complaints followed the same reporting and quality assurance process.

7. Question: How was learning from compliments used?

Answer: Compliments were categorised by theme and analysed with complaints to reinforce good practice. An analysis of learning from complaints could usefully be included in quarterly monitoring reports.

8. Question: Were informal resolutions recorded?
Answer: Yes, they were logged in case files, reviewed in audits, and shared through training and quality assurance bulletins. They were not explicitly pulled out into complaints reports. It would be desirable to do this if a method could be found that did not add to the paperwork for staff.

9. Question: Would rejected complaints be reported?
Answer: Yes, future reports would show numbers and reasons. In Quarter 1, none were rejected.

10. Question: What caused complaints about staff attitude?
Answer: Mostly miscommunication; new videos and reflective learning aimed to improve staff–family understanding.

11. Question: How were staff supported during complaints?
Answer: Managers provided support, clarifying complaints targeted the authority, not individuals. Repeat issues prompted training or case reassignment.

12. Question: How were complaints handled informally?
Answer: Resolution meetings or calls were offered before formal stages, often settling issues early.

13. Question: How accessible was the complaints process?
Answer: A one-page guide and verbal support were given; a digital project would improve website access and materials.

14. Question: Could complaints be shown as a percentage of service users?
Answer: Yes, future reports would include contextual data to show complaints relative to caseload.

15. Question: Why might a complaint be rejected before Stage 1?
Answer: Only those outside the 12-month timeframe or statutory scope were declined, with reasons and alternatives provided.

16. Question: Was the process trauma-informed?
Answer: Yes, a trauma-informed, restorative approach was taken, offering advocacy and sensitive communication.

17. Question: Were all children’s complaints reported?
Answer: Yes, both statutory and corporate complaints were included; the distinction was only for classification.

18. Question: How were families encouraged to complain?
Answer: Complaints were normalised as learning tools; staff provided information and reassurance in correspondence.

19. Question: How independent were investigations?
Answer: Stage 1 was independent of case teams; Stage 2 involved external investigators, with Ombudsman oversight if needed.

20. Question: How were senior officer complaints escalated?
Answer: Such cases could proceed directly to the Ombudsman if no suitable internal investigator was available.

21. Question: Why was the complaints team within Governance and Law?
Answer: This structure followed standard local authority practice, ensuring independence and proper oversight.

22. Question: How was continuous improvement assured?
Answer: The Independent Scrutineer confirmed Herefordshire’s process met national standards and best practice.

At the conclusion of the debate the committee discussed and agreed the following recommendations.

Recommendations:

1. Herefordshire Council ensures that in quarterly performance monitoring and its annual report of complaints it includes:

a.     learning from compliments

b.    complaints that are declined and the reasons for this and

c.     evidence in case file audits of informal resolutions.