When we close a complaint, individual remedies categories must be recorded on the remedies screen on ECHO. This guidance note explains the relevant circumstances for each of the categories available on ECHO. 

Personal remedies 

Apology 

Bodies in jurisdiction should apologise where fault has caused injustice. The body in jurisdiction may apologise in person or in writing, but in either case the apology must be made directly to the person affected using clear and plain language.

Add or correct records

Complainants may be upset about information held on file about them, because information is factually incorrect, or because they disagree with the opinion of professional assessments. Where we find fault with record keeping, we recommend the body in jurisdiction makes an amendment, addition, or correction to the records. We might also recommend the body in jurisdiction:

• places a copy of our final decision in someone’s social care file;

• place a cover page on a file to alert readers to incorrect records; 

• keep records of reports and actions taken in response to the complaint;

• write to an employer to confirm there are no safeguarding concerns about the complainant; or 

• correct the registration date on the complainant’s housing application.

Some people will ask that mistakes in records are removed completely, but we should not make such a recommendation. The law often requires that records are not altered retrospectively. If information is removed from records it means there is no trace that the event has happened. This can make it difficult for professionals to understand the history of events, and makes the records unreliable. It means anyone reading the record will not have the relevant facts available about the services provided or the historic faults which occurred. 

Financial redress: Quantifiable loss

Where the body in jurisdiction has failed to pay money due to the complainant, we may include a recommendation for that sum to be paid in the remedy. Similarly, if a complainant has wrongfully accrued a debt as a result of the body in jurisdiction’s actions, we may ask for the debt to be written off. Complainants can be affected by such a fault in different ways and our recommendation will take account of this. There is further guidance in our Guidance on remedies.

Financial redress: Loss of service 

A complainant may be impacted by the body in jurisdiction’s failure to arrange or provide a service. We should always first consider whether there is any practical action which could be taken to return the complainant to the position they would have been in were it not for the fault. If that is not possible, we may consider recommending a payment to acknowledge the impact caused by the loss of service. There is further guidance in the subject guidance areas in the Guidance on remedies.

Financial redress: Avoidable distress, time and trouble

We expect bodies in jurisdiction to treat people fairly and with respect, and not to expose the public to unnecessary distress, harm, risk or avoidable time and trouble as a result of their actions or inactions. In situations where this occurs, we may recommend a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault on the complainant. There is detailed guidance on such payments in our Guidance on remedies. 

Improved BinJ remedy

We might receive a complaint where a body in jurisdiction has accepted fault and offered a remedy to the complainant, but we consider the actions taken are not sufficient to remedy the injustice. In such circumstances, we may recommend the body in jurisdiction takes further action to provide a complete remedy to the complainant. 

New appeal, a review, or reconsidered decision 

When we find fault in a decision, we may ask bodies in jurisdiction to consider the decision again, ask a senior manager to conduct a review, or recommend a fresh appeal takes place. Some examples include, but are not limited to, recommendations for bodies in jurisdiction to:

• reconsider an application for disability related expenditure;
• arrange a new admissions appeals panel hearing with a different set of panellists
• reconsider whether a statutory nuisance has occurred;
• arrange for a review panel to hear a complaint at stage 3 of the children’s service complaints process; or
• review a decision about using direct payments to pay carers in kind.

Provide services to the person affected

In cases where we find the complainant has not received services they were entitled to, or when they have received a shortfall in services, we would recommend the body in jurisdiction provides new or additional services. Examples might include, 

• providing free school transport;
• delivering new rubbish bins;
• carrying out remedial work on a vehicle crossover;
• moving a disabled parking bay nearer complainant’s home;
• visiting a property and conduct an assessment of statutory nuisance; or
• making a direct offer of suitable housing.

Provide information/advice to the person affected

We might find fault with a council for failing to provide sufficient information or advice to enable the complainant to understand its decision-making process. The provision of substandard information can cause uncertainty to complainants about how they should expect services to be delivered, and might limit their ability to challenge decisions. In such circumstances, we might recommend the body in jurisdiction;  

• send a detailed breakdown of outstanding care charges;
• provide a copy of a needs assessment;
• provide a gas safety certificate; or
• clearly explain the reasons for a particular decision.

Reassessment

If we find evidence a body in jurisdiction has failed to carry out a proper assessment then we may recommend it carries out a fresh one. This is particularly relevant in social care cases where a body in jurisdiction has failed to properly assess a person’s needs. Following the fresh assessment, we might want to consider whether an additional remedy is required, if it appears the failure to carry out the original assessment properly led to the person missing out on services they were entitled to.

Remedies for improving services 

Procedure or policy change/review 

In cases where we find an omission or error in a procedure or policy, we should recommend the body in jurisdiction makes the changes necessary to bring it in line with the relevant statutory framework. 

There may be many instances in which we recommend that an organisation considers procedural changes, rather than specifically state that they ought to make procedural changes. In these cases we would ask the body in jurisdiction to conduct a review and provide us with an action plan to show how it will reduce the likelihood of the faults from recurring. Examples of this include: 

• the way a body in jurisdiction decides and records decisions made by social care funding panels;
• how it supervises volunteers;
• how it provides information for the public;
• how it deals with incoming correspondence; or
• its arrangements for handling complaints about commissioned services.

Provide training and/or guidance

We might find evidence of fault in how a body in jurisdiction has acted, but find no evidence of fault in its written policies and procedures. In such cases, we may recommend the body carries out staff training in the relevant subject area. In less serious cases, we might instead recommend that guidance is provided to staff about our findings. This might include, 

• reminding officers to pay attention to site conditions involving shared boundaries;
• reminding staff about the legal requirements for record-keeping; or 
• asking for our decision to be shared with relevant staff so lessons are learned from the complaint.

Provide services/information to others affected

We might find that a wider group of people have suffered injustice as a result of the faults we find. If we have identified others affected by fault (under our section 26(D) powers) we can recommend they received a remedy. Examples might include:

• notifying local residents about their eligibility for a scheme which the Council did not properly advertise;
• providing financial payments to friends and family carers who were wrongly denied a fostering allowance;
• inviting parents to pursue a fresh school admissions appeal when we found systemic flaws in how the original appeals were run;
• reassessing adults with social care needs, where we have found systemic issues in how a council carries out needs assessments

It might also be advisable to set limitations on how far back the Council should seek to apply a remedy. For example, if we recommend a Council pays fostering allowance to friends and family carers who have not received it, we might ask it reviews cases from the time we published the relevant focus report in 2013.