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 2025/26.

The committee received a report outlining the performance in the areas of complaints, data incidents and requests for information made to the council over the municipal year 2025/26. The following principal points were noted;

1. The Council handled 922 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and 247 Environmental Information Regulation (EIR).
2. An overall 97% response rate was achieved, exceeding the Council’s target of 95% and comparing favourably with other local authorities.
3. Information requests continued to rise during the year. To manage demand more efficiently, the Council proactively published information online, maintained a disclosure log with over 3,000 requests and responses, and provided informal responses where information was already publicly available. These measures enabled 213 requests to be handled outside the formal Freedom of Information process, resulting in faster responses for requesters and reduced administrative workload for Council services.
4. 13 cases were referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) with the Council’s decision being upheld in 6 cases and the 7 cases remaining still under investigation.
5. 234 Subject Access Requests (SARs) were received, primarily relating to social care records. The response rate was 78%, below target, reflecting the complexity of reviewing and redacting large volumes of sensitive information.
6. 307 data security incidents, near misses and alleged breaches were reported. 1 incident met the threshold for reporting to the ICO, with no further action taken against the Council.
7. Lessons learned from incidents were used to improve training, communications, procedures and processes.
8. The Council processed 482 formal complaints, down from 560 in the previous year.
9. 48 complaints were referred to the Ombudsman, compared with 55 the previous year.

12. Complaints raised through third parties increased from 174 to 310.
13. Overall complaint numbers had continued to decline over the last four years, suggesting improvements in early resolution.
14. The introduction of the Complaint Handling Code had improved consistency, transparency and complaint management across the Council.
15. The most common complaint category remained service failure, although this reflected the complainant’s perception and did not necessarily indicate an actual failure.
16. In Corporate Services, the largest complaint category related to delays and incorrect information, mainly concerning council tax matters.
17. Performance within Community Wellbeing and Economy and Environment remained an area of concern, with targeted support being provided.
18. Of the 482 Stage 1 complaints, 100 were escalated to Stage 2.
19. 38% of Stage 2 investigations were completed outside the required timescales, it was thought the implementation of the new complaints procedure and shorter response deadlines had contributed to delays.
20. Most Ombudsman referrals were either closed at the initial enquiry stage or found to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
21. Complaints upheld by the Ombudsman mainly related to nationally recognised pressures in SEND and housing services.
22. The recommendations that were made as part of the annual report were noted.

In response to questions, it was noted;

1. The response rate in SARs was lower than the target of 95%, largely due to the high volume of requests relating to Children's Services, particularly from care leavers and parents. These requests were often complex and time-consuming because large numbers of documents had to be reviewed and redacted to remove third-party and confidential information. While some requesters were understanding of the delays, others are less sympathetic and were keen to receive their information as quickly as possible.
2. Complaints were viewed as an opportunity to learn and improve services. Whilst some recurring complaint themes, such as council tax, are predictable, many complaints were unique.
3. The different stages of the complaints process were explained.
4. Complaints regarding SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) continued to reflect national pressures, particularly around delays in assessments and statutory timescales. The Council often implemented remedies following complaints in line with Ombudsman expectations. Communication with families was reported to be strong, with delays being the main issue rather than communication failures.
5. For operational complaints such as missed bin collections, the Council first sought practical resolution through service requests. Repeat issues were formally investigated to identify underlying causes and prevent recurrence.
6. Where officers suspected a complaint was submitted using AI tools, it was explained that contact was made with the complainant to clarify the specific issues being raised to ensure complaints were properly understood and investigated.
7. Complaints data and compliments were currently analysed through officer review rather than AI tools, with officers emphasising the importance of understanding the detail behind feedback.

The committee noted the report.