This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Copies of the Independent Customer Complaints Reviewer's Six Monthly Reports and the SPSO Responses'.

 
Independent Service Delivery Complaints Reviewer  
Annual Report 2016-17 
Overview 
(NB: Names in red for SPSO reference only) 
 
Our role is to provide a final external stage for complaints about the service delivered by 
SPSO under its Service Standards. Where a complainant has made a service complaint to 
SPSO and is dissatisfied with the final response, we review SPSO’s handling of matters 
and give our view on whether SPSO has acted in accordance with its Service Delivery 
Standards. We aim to provide closure for complainants by giving thorough, independent 
assessments of the issues, and, if we find any service failures, recommendations for 
appropriate redress. For SPSO we aim to offer constructive feedback and practical ideas 
for further improvement. 
 
During the year we received 7 referrals and completed 2 full reviews (name redacted). 
One complaint was withdrawn by the complainant (name redacted),  and in 4 cases 
(names redacted)  we did not carry out a full review because the issues the complainant 
wished us to look at related to decisions made by SPSO rather than to a service failure. At 
the end of the year there were no cases outstanding. 
 
Both the total number of referrals and the number of cases investigated were substantially 
lower than the numbers for 2015-16 (when there were 18 referrals and 8 reviews). This 
suggests that SPSO has been successful in learning the lessons of past service 
complaints. As in 2015-16 the majority of complaint issues were not upheld as we were 
satisfied that SPSO had dealt with matters appropriately in line with its published 
procedures and service standards.  
 
Our findings in the two cases where we carried out a full review are set out in table 1 
below. As far as investigation procedures were concerned we were satisfied that SPSO 
had been thorough and fair. Where there had been administrative errors or failures of 
communication, we found that SPSO had, on the whole, been quick to apologise and had 
taken action to reduce the risk of similar problems in future.  The complaint issues which 
we did uphold related to delays or oversights in replying to correspondence and led to 3 
recommendations to SPSO. 
 
We are grateful for the opportunity to attend meetings of the Audit and Advisory Committee 
and to report directly to the Committee on our work. 
 
Finally we should like to express thanks to SPSO staff for the assistance they have 
provided – supplying files and responding to questions about policy and procedure. 
Without this support we would have been unable to deliver an effective, timely, service.  
 
 
 Complaint 
Issues upheld 
Issues  partially  Recommendations
issues 
upheld 
1 Mrs A 




2 Mr B 




 11 

 


    
 
 
 

 

 
Summary of cases reviewed and recommendations 
(For information of the Audit and Advisory Committee) 
 
Mrs A complained about SPSO’s response to a recommendation made by ICRS in relation 
to an earlier complaint. SPSO had accepted that there had been a serious delay in 
responding to the recommendation and had apologised, but Mrs A was dissatisfied with 
the explanation offered for the delay and also with the way in which her new complaint had 
been handled. We upheld four of the seven complaint issues raised by Mrs A as we found 
that SPSO, while admitting the delay in responding to the recommendation, should have 
done more to explain the delay, and also that it had failed to respond within published 
timescales to her new complaint and to explain that the complaint had been referred 
directly to stage 2 of the service complaints process. We recommended that SPSO should 
consider making a consolatory payment for the inconvenience and distress caused to Mrs 
A and that it should review and report publicly on the timeliness of service complaint 
responses. In response SPSO confirmed that it had learnt from the complaint and had 
changed its systems for responding to recommendations to prevent similar failures in 
future. It said that it had considered making a consolatory payment but had decided that 
this would not be appropriate as there had been no financial loss. With regard to service 
complaint response times it confirmed that these are already reviewed and published. 
 
Mr B complained that SPSO had whitewashed his complaint, failing to address the issues 
he had raised and displaying bias against him, and that he had had to write repeatedly 
before he received a response. We found no evidence of bias and were satisfied that 
SPSO had followed appropriate investigation and decision review procedures, but noted 
that it had failed to make clear, at the end of its consideration of his complaints, that there 
was no provision for further review. We recommended that SPSO should issue a closure 
letter and apologise for not having done so before. SPSO accepted the recommendation.