Customer satisfaction
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 and our response
to it are published below.
BMG Customer Satisfaction Study
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
Click
To Download
|
