Graham White, Interim Service Head, Legal Services, and Sayed Khan, Complaints and Information Officer, introduced the report setting out information regarding the Council’s handling of complaints and information requests in the year 2014/15.

They took Members through the details in the report and highlighted a number of points including that, in relation to Freedom of Information Requests:

·         Tower Hamlets had one of the highest volumes of information requests in London but that the figures showed the requests were generally well-handled.

·         Only 3.1% of the requests resulted in an Internal Review. This figure was low but it was important to learn from them to ensure the same mistakes were not repeated.

·         Only 5 cases were determined by the Information Commissioner which was a very good percentage. Of those, three were upheld due to the delay in answering the questions.

In relation to Corporate Complaints a 17% rise in cases was reported although this increase was in line with other authorities. Escalations to the final stage dropped from 5% to 4%.

It was also reported that:

·         The personalised disabled parking bay review had resulted in a big increase in complaints in that area.

·         There had been a reduced volume of complaints in adult social care.

·         Turnaround in answering complaints had slipped a little.

·         There had been a significant increase in Local Government Ombudsman issues but that this was common across London and the country.

·         Overall the Council was ranked 13^th out of 33 London Boroughs and the City of London.

·         Housing Ombudsman cases were also noted.

During discussion it was noted that a couple of named individuals were listed in the reports. The Committee discussed this and it was considered that the names should be redacted from the reports as this was Exempt information.

RESOLVED

1.    That the names of the individuals listed in the report be redacted.

Members made a number of comments during discussion of the report, including that:

·         The general improvement in performance was welcome and officers should be thanked for supporting this improvement.

·         It was important to ensure that lessons were learnt from the failures listed. Officers confirmed that they did look for patterns or issues to tackle and agreed to include information on lessons learnt in later reports.

·         It could be useful if the next report included an extra column where the officers could comment on cases (e.g. ‘no safeguarding issues’, ‘procedures altered following review’ etc.)

·         It would be useful for the Committee to have more information on the procedures used to review cases.

·         It was important that responses were published on the website and that the next report should confirm the level of compliance with this.

·         Some personal experiences had not been as successful as the overall statistics suggested.

In response to points raised, officers stated that:

·         They would provide Members with advice on how the corporate targets were set each year and whether higher targets were set.

·         There were performance monitoring systems to ensure that teams promptly reviewed issues that arose.

·         They would look to circulate historical benchmarking information to provide longer term comparisons with other London Boroughs.

·         The Corporate Management Team was looking to promote transparent and prompt engagement with issues raised by residents.

Significant concerns were expressed about the handling of housing complaints and the performance of the Housing Ombudsman. There was a discussion around what role the Council could play in ensuring complaints were dealt with effectively by local housing associations if the Housing Ombudsman was not able to deal with the volume it was receiving and in particular how to ensure that housing associations properly dealt with complaints. It may be that the Council needed to act more strongly with poorly performing housing associations.

It was recognised that Tower Hamlets Homes was performing better than many housing associations and it was felt it could have a role as looking to become a Beacon. Councillor Sirajul Islam (as Cabinet Member for Housing Management and Performance) agreed to discuss the general issue with the Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Homes. He also undertook to discuss with officers how complaints data was collated by the Council. It was noted that the Council did monitor responses to Member Enquiries in relation to housing associations.

The Committee noted that there were opportunities here to promote the Council’s transparency agenda in encouraging more information to be automatically available to residents.

It was suggested that tenants’ panels may need to be improved and the borough-wide panel given more exposure so residents knew it was available. Peabody were provided as an example of a well-run housing association who may be able to provide advice on this issue.

It was suggested that new legislation relating to housing associations’ responsibilities to Councillors and Local Authorities were not being taken seriously.

The Committee recommended that a protocol should be developed on how housing associations should respond to complaints.

Finally, the Chair thanked Ruth Dowden, Complaints and Information Manager for producing a useful and comprehensive report and in particular the proposed improvement and development initiatives set out in section 8 which the Committee endorsed.

RESOLVED

1.    To note the performance figures for 2014/2015 under the complaints  procedures and for requests under the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act.

2.    To note the work of Council in relation to Information Governance matters.

3.    To note that remedial action in respect of complaints and lessons learnt are will be drawn out further in the 6 month update report.