Sent by e-mail

Dear Mr Poultney

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Thank you for your e-mail of 9 May 2009.

You asked under the Freedom of Information Act for the definition of “Significant case failings” and raised a number of questions. I have responded to these below.

One of the OLSCC's 2008/9 targets set for SRA is that “In 90% of closed complaints, SRA to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome with no significant case failings”.

In your comments you mention that “It appears the findings of the OLSO are a significant factor in determining performance under this target”. This target includes a number of elements, one of which concerns the OLSO's adverse findings.

The OLSO and OLSCC are two distinct offices. OLSCC staff independently review a statistically valid number of SRA's files to determine SRA's performance achievement against the target.

You asked in your first question for a definition of “No significant case failings”. This is a term used by OLSCC auditors. It is based on the approach taken in the OLSCC Quality of Outcome Audit Report June 2007 which can be found on our website at www.olscc.gov.uk. That report explains that the audit measured whether:

• The outcome for the consumer was fair and reasonable with no significant failings on the file.

• The outcome was fair and reasonable for the consumer but there were some failings on the file.

• The outcome was not fair and reasonable for the consumer.

The audit report states on page 4 that “The outcome achieved by the caseworker for the consumer could be considered to be one that is reasonable even where there are failings on the file in one or more of the areas shown above. This is where the failings in themselves do not change the outcome or severely impact upon the consumer's experience.”

The report then goes onto define criteria in relation to failings and to offer examples of these. I have attached an extract from the report at Annex A.

With regard to your question 2, as explained above the term “significant case failings” is only used by OLSCC therefore OLSO will not have any data related to it.

In terms of the past 5 years, the OLSCC first assessed SRA against these criteria on the Quality of Outcome Audit 2007 and the number of significant failures by SRA is identified in that report as 26 cases.

The target of “In 90% of closed complaints, SRA to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome with no significant case failings” has been set for the 2008/9 year. Performance against this target is currently being assessed and it is expected that the findings will be available at the end of June 2009. These will be published on the OLSCC once performance has been fully assessed.

With regard to your question 3, as explained above OLSO does not use the definition of “significant case failings”.

I hope this response is helpful. As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the MoJ has an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied you may write to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they will re-assess how the Department handled the original request.

If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email to the Data Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the date of this letter, at the following address:

Data Access and Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice

1^st Floor, Zone 1C

Post point 1.41

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

E-mail: [email address]

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under Section 50 of the FOIA. You can contact the Information Commissioner's Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Internet: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely

Mark Webber

Annex A

In order for an outcome to be considered not reasonable, the failings had to be considered to have resulted in a negative impact on the outcome for the consumer either during resolution of the complaint or on its conclusion. For example, if a consumer had raised a specific issue in their complaint and this was not investigated properly, then this probably impacted upon the outcome of the complaint.

The following section describes the criteria in more detail and provides some examples of where failings may occur.

1.5.1 Decision Making

This relates to the correctness and quality of the decision-making of

LCS and SRA caseworkers and covers the following key areas:

Examples of where cases would fail include:

1.5.2 Consumer Circumstances

This examines whether the caseworker has taken account of the individual consumer circumstances and covers the following key areas:

Examples of where cases would fail include:

Where LCS and SRA fail to meet these needs, this can have a major impact on the consumer - for example not being able to read and understand letters sent to them and therefore being unable to follow the progress of their complaint and any action they may need to take as a result.

1.5.3 Management of file

This relates to the process-driven tasks that support progress towards a prompt and appropriate resolution of a complaint and covers the following key areas:

Examples of where cases would fail include:

Failings such as these may leave the consumer with an incorrect picture of how much compensation their complaint might merit, unsure what progress is being made or unaware of information that is relevant to the investigation. This can, in some instances, undermine consumer confidence in the system.

• Impartiality • Transparency • Efficiency • Effective remedy •

Appointed under the Access to Justice Act 1999 as an independent regulator working with the Law Society on behalf of the consumer to improve standards in complaints handling