Customer Satisfaction Survey 2005
In spring 2005 we commissioned an independent study of customer satisfaction with our services to explore the current issues surrounding customer satisfaction and to use the feedback to help make improvements to our service. The results of the study are available as downloads (see panel on the right) and our response to it is published below.
The Commission’s Response
Customer feedback is very important to us. We take careful account of the feedback we get about our service from councils, complainants (the public who complain to us) and those who advise them. We try to respond to what they say by making service improvements that are consistent with our role as an independent statutory body.
Every four or five years we procure a national study of complainants from an independent research body. The research tells us that the overwhelming factor that affects whether a complainant is satisfied with our work is the outcome of their complaint. Even where we do find the Council is at fault, some complainants remain unhappy because they expected the outcome to be more punitive for the Council or more generous for them.
We receive around 19,000 complaints a year from the general public. About 25% of these are ‘premature’; the complainant has not yet given the Council sufficient opportunity to deal with the complaint and so we ask them to approach the Council first. Another 12% are about matters that are outside our jurisdiction to investigate. The rest are investigated by us. In the financial year 2004/05 we made decisions on 11,369 complaints that were within our jurisdiction and not premature. In 27% of cases there was a remedy or settlement obtained for the complainant. The total amount paid out by Councils to complainants as a result of our recommendations was £1.1 million, and there were many other non-financial remedies, some involving general service improvements. The main reason why the remainder of complaints are not found in the complainant’s favour is that, although the complainant is often very unhappy about what the Council has done, there has been no administrative fault by the Council or its officers in making the decision or delivering the service. It is not our role to substitute our judgement for that of the elected Councillors and their officials, where they are acting properly within the law and local policies.
The BMG study was a new departure for us. In the previous two studies in 1995 and 1999 we had used MORI to run a telephone survey of 1000 complainants (with a boosted sample for minority ethnic complaints). This produced valuable information but was limited by the scope of the questions and the relatively short length of a telephone interview. We decided that rather than run a similar survey in 2004 we should try to look in more detail at the issues that had been identified in the previous surveys and see if there was more we could do to meet reasonable customer expectations. Research of this sort involves in-depth interviews and discussions with small samples. The BMG report is drawn from discussion groups and interviews of a very small number of people (45 complainants, 14 local authority staff and 13 LGO staff). Also, BMG warned us that people who are willing to take time and trouble to participate in focus groups are more likely to ‘have an axe to grind’ about their experiences; it is a feature of focus groups that negative experiences can be ‘talked up’ and can dominate discussions. All these factors should be taken into account when considering the criticisms of complainants in the study.
There were a number of positive messages. There was widespread praise for our staff; complainants found them polite, courteous, intelligent and efficient; they found our processing times reasonable. There was very positive feedback from the local authority officers; in recent years we have increased the range and natures of our work with councils, to pass on lessons learnt from complaints and improve council complaints handling.
But complainants raised a range of concerns about particular aspects of our complaints handling service, the processes we follow and the limitations of our role. There are significant constraints on what we can do to meet these concerns. Some are linked to our legislation, some to our independence (we are not set up as a consumer champion), and others are financial. But we have gained valuable insights from this study. And will be considering a number of areas where we might be able to change our approach in order to increase complainant satisfaction in the future.
Our first priority will be to develop our Advice Service. This is a predominantly telephone-based service that is often the first point of contact for the public and their advisers. We will explore ways of making this service more effective in explaining our powers, the limits on what we are able to do, and what the public can expect by way of a remedy where fault is found. We will also consider ways of involving complainants more in the investigative process and using the means of communication that they prefer.
Nigel Karney, Secretary to the Commission
23 September 2005
Back to top
Date Updated: 02/12/08