Recording remedies on ECHO after a final decision

When an Investigator issues a final decision with recommendations, they are responsible for completing the remedies screen. 

The Investigator must first select the category (or categories) of remedy they have recommended. Multiple categories can be selected where necessary. Guidance on remedy categories, and when to use them, is available in Appendix 1 of this manual.  

Personal remedies

The personal remedy box should include details of the actions we have recommended to put things right for the person affected. Details of any financial remedies should also be included in this box. Recommendations must align with the SMART principles and our Guidance on remedies. The Investigator must make it clear what we expect to see from the body in jurisdiction in order to satisfy the recommendation. 

This box can contain personal information about the complainant (and others), as information about personal remedies is not put in the public domain. 

Service improvements 

Recommendations for service improvements must also align with the SMART principles and our Guidance on remedies. Details should be placed in the ‘service improvements’ text boxes. As later set out in paragraphs 11 and 13 below, the service improvement summary shouldn’t contain details about the timescale for completion as this looks wrong in the interactive map and is picked up, instead, by the echo record.

In cases where there are multiple recommendations, they should be placed in separate boxes. If there are more than five service improvements, they can be grouped together in boxes by theme.

The service improvement box(es) should include a short summary of the action the council has agreed to take to improve services following our investigation. 

The text from these boxes will be published on our interactive map of local authority performance and in annual letters to bodies in jurisdiction. The information must be easily understood by any reader, without reference to the decision statement, and must not: 

• contain any jargon, acronyms, abbreviations or ambiguities; 
• contain typographical or formatting errors; 
• contain any information which would identify the complainant, or a third party;
• provide details of the timescales for compliance;
• begin with bullet points or paragraph numbers. 

Examples of well-written service improvements 

The Council was at fault in the way it dealt with an application for a vehicle crossover. The Council has agreed to provide information to all staff within the highways department that pillars and other decorative aspects of a wall may require planning permission, and that this should be communicated to applicants where appropriate. 

The Council will review its processes for in-year admissions to ensure that it makes a best-interests decision in accordance with the School Admissions Code where a parent makes a request for their child to be educated in a different year group.

The Council will review its procedures for dealing with applications for disabled parking bays to ensure officers consider if an applicant’s circumstances warrant a departure from its eligibility criteria. 

The Council agreed to review how its benefits service records information it receives and its timescales for updating records and carrying out reviews. It will create an action plan to prevent inaccurate recording and delays. 

Examples of unpublishable service improvements

I recommended the Council undertake that, if it says it will monitor someone’s refuse collections in future, the Council will ensure it keeps that promise.

This first example is vague. Recommending that a council does not act with fault is unrealistic, and does not provide us with anything measurable against which to judge the effectiveness of the service improvement.

BinJ has already put new system in place to avoid recurrence: Commissioning Manager to review referral criteria and referral approaches with referral agencies… to ensure inappropriate referrals are not sent through for delivery & thus raising client expectations; 

The second example uses an acronym (BinJ) which is unintelligible to any external reader, and uses jargon, such as commissioning manager, referral approaches, and referral agencies, which the general public would be unfamiliar with.

Within three months of my final decision, the Council should: Provide training to all relevant staff about recognising potential continuous care duty needs when presented. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that this has been done.

The third example talks about time scales, and the need for the council to provide evidence of compliance, which is superfluous information. The reference to continuing care duty is vague, and unlikely to be understood by an external audience.

The Council will discuss the lessons that can be learned from this case and provide evidence about how it will ensure its children's and housing teams work together effectively in future.

The fourth example talks about ‘lessons learned from this case’. This is also vague, and would benefit from more information about the faults we found.

Setting timescales

Investigators must set a due date on the ECHO remedy screen for the body in jurisdiction to implement the remedy. This will automatically create a task for the investigator called ‘Remedy due’. The Investigator must reassign the task to their Team Co-ordinator. 

There might be multiple parts to a remedy with different deadlines (for example, four weeks to provide an apology and payment, and three months to revise a policy). In these cases, the Investigator should record the longest-due date as the ‘due date’ on ECHO, and set additional tasks for their Team Co-ordinator to check the more immediate remedies. 

The amount of time provided to bodies in jurisdiction to implement remedies will depend on the complexity of the agreed actions. We generally expect a body in jurisdiction to complete straightforward recommendations (such as a written apology and financial payment) within four weeks of the final decision. 

More complex remedies (such as changes to policy, or staff training) will take longer to implement. In these cases, it may be reasonable to provide a body in jurisdiction three months to provide evidence of compliance. However, some actions might take considerably longer; for example, where a council needs to carry out a public consultation on a new policy. It is therefore important that bodies in jurisdictions are made aware – and agree with – the proposed timescales when we issue our draft decisions. 

Alerting Team Co-ordinators to evidence of compliance

Investigators should not chase for evidence of compliance, or enter into post-decision correspondence with BinJs and/or complainants about the compliance process. This is the role of Team Co-ordinators and Casework Managers.

If a BinJ sends satisfactory evidence of compliance directly to the investigator, the Investigator should alert their Team Co-ordinator, who will complete the remedy screen and send the compliance outcome letter to the BinJ.

If the BinJ provides an incomplete or unclear response to a recommendation, the Investigator will alert the Team Co-ordinator. The Team Co-ordinator will chase the BinJ for a full response. If further clarification is required at any stage of the process, the Team Co-ordinator must alert their casework manager.

Queries from complainants

If an Investigator or Team Co-ordinator receives a query from a complaint about recommendation or compliance outcome, they should set a task for their Casework Manager to respond. This will help avoid unnecessary post-decision correspondence and ensure Casework Managers are aware of any potential non-compliance issues