10.1 General

It is acceptable to provide clarification in reply to post-decision contact in writing or by telephone, but make it clear we will not reply again unless we decide any contact has a bearing on our decision.

Thereafter we should either treat any further contact through our normal procedures in the following sections, or we should note it but not reply if that is what we have told the complainant we will do.

10.2 New complaints received outside the Intake process

New complaints and resubmissions may arrive in the Assessment and Investigation Teams. Below is a list of possible scenarios. If we receive:

•  A call, email, or Online Complaint Service (OCS) message direct to an Investigator because they had previously investigated a separate complaint: the Investigator will ask the caller to visit our website or contact Intake directly on 0300 061 0614:
  Investigators or ATCs should use the email template on ECHO called ‘EML – re new complaint’ for this. Please send this directly to the complainant. Do not forward the ‘new complaint’ correspondence from the complainant to Intake. If the complainant contacts Intake we can get all the relevant information and it stops the complainant contacting Investigators about the previous complaint.

• During an assessment, post which we consider to be a separate new complaint or after a decision, post about related issues after events we have already considered:
  Note in N&A confirming there is a new complaint, and set a task on the current record for both the Intake Team Leaders (ITLs) with an explanation of what is required, including identification of any documentation relating to the new complaint. The ITLs will either deal with the complaint or delegate accordingly. 

• During an assessment we identify a new complaint which needs creating and allocating immediately alongside the existing one:
  The ATC will create the new case and arrange for allocation. We must make sure we have the correct BinJ recorded on the case before contacting it to avoid the risk of disclosing personal information to the wrong organisation and causing a data incident.

• Cases where a remedy has not been complied with:
  The Compliance Manual says where a BinJ fails to provide an agreed remedy, a Casework Manger will generally open a new case to consider the failure and any new substantive issues where appropriate. If this happens in AT, an ATC should open a new case and allocate directly to the original AT Investigator. 

10.3 Challenges and service complaints

PDR challenges and Service complaints will be dealt with in accordance with the Post Decision Review and Service Complaint Manual. Legal challenges (PAPs and JRs) will be processed in accordance with the Legal Manual. 

Advice on contact which may not obviously fit procedures:

When deciding whether a PDR request or other post decision contact challenging a decision meets the threshold for review, we should not be doing so much work it effectively amounts to a review. Nor should we pass for review without properly considering whether the threshold is met and rejecting requests which do not meet it. In AT the number of cases we handle means we must be efficient at handling PDR requests, so we have developed the following practical guide in checklist form:

Read the request (or skim if very long) without making notes. Respond to the following questions with yes or no and then take the actions outlined below the chart.

Type	Questions	Action if Yes	If No
Jurisdiction	Does the PA/Rep question our use of our jurisdiction, but the points raised are covered in the SOR ?	C	C
	Does the jurisdictional challenge need a response from you either to explain more clearly or to change the decision or decision reason?	A	C
	Is the jurisdictional challenge something which isn’t compelling, but you feel it’s an arguable point that merits a second opinion?	B	C
New information	If PA claims to provide new information, is it already covered in the SOR and/or simply not relevant to the decision?	C	C
	If information is new and not previously considered, does it affect your decision such that it needs a response from you, or changes your decision or decision reason?	A	C
	Is information new, relevant and not previously considered, but would not lead you to change your decision without a second opinion?	B	C
Wrong information	Does the PA claim you have relied on inaccurate information but it’s clear they simply disagree with your reasoning?	C	C
	Has PA/Rep provided credible evidence of us relying on wrong information that needs a response or a change in your decision or decision reason?	A	C
	Has PA/Rep provided possibly credible evidence of inaccuracy that isn’t wholly compelling, but is an arguable point that merits a second opinion?	B	C

Actions

• A – Respond BRIEFLY to the specific points warranting it ONLY (changing decision or SoR if necessary) but reject the rest as not justifying further work – adapt the ‘Investigator rejection’ template letter as necessary. Do not respond to every point or write at length.
• B – Pass for PDR
• C – Send ‘Investigator rejection’ letter adapted as necessary

In all cases of A & C -  complete Other Contact screen (type – Investigator Review Request and outcome – Invalid Review Request)

Note in N & A with only enough information to explain your decision. Don’t cover every point raised by the PA/Rep or repeat previous notes.

Advice on dealing with requests to speak to a line manager

• Investigators have the Ombudsman’s delegated authority to decide complaints and must take ownership and responsibility for their actions in dealing with them.  They may decide to seek advice from their manager, but otherwise the manager is likely to be unfamiliar with the case and will not be the person deciding it, or any challenge to the decision. But managers are responsible for dealing with ‘complaints about us’ where the staff member has been unable to resolve the matter.

• During a telephone call, a complainant or someone from a BinJ may ask to speak to a manager. This could be because the caller is dissatisfied with some aspect of staff conduct and wishes to complain about it, or is dissatisfied with the assessment of a complaint. Try to find out why the caller wishes to speak to the manager. Whatever the reason, try to be as patient, polite and helpful as possible. If you cannot satisfy the caller, and they insist on speaking with your manager:

• Advise the caller you will pass on the request to the manager, and give the manager’s name. Also give their telephone number and/or email address if requested.

• If your direct line manager will not be available for more than two days, you should refer the request to a different manager and explain this to the caller.

• It will be for the manager to decide how to respond, so be careful not to say anything which commits them to a particular course of action. So, rather than saying “I will get the manager to call you back within 2 hours”, you should say “I will pass on your message that you would like to be called back within 2 hours”.

• Make a note of the call in ECHO. You should then task the manager, using that day's date as the target date, and starting the description as 'CALL BACK REQUEST......'

• Once the task is set, it is for the manager to act promptly, and preferably within 24 hours, to decide whether to return the call. If the manager decides not to return the call they should either send the caller an email to explain the response, or write a letter if there is no email address. They should put a note in N&A to explain the response. The manager should then set a task for the Investigator with any further instruction.

Persistent post decision contact

Please refer to the ECHO manual and guidance on Managing challenging complainant behaviour.

10.4 Documents added to cases after file management

If we receive contact on a case more than 12 months after the decision, file management will already have taken place. It will not be triggered again, regardless of any ‘Other contact’ record we create.

Please refer to the ECHO Manual for instructions .