2.1 Complainants 

The complainant will identify, ideally in writing and within one month of the decision -

• Important evidence which was relied on is not accurate, and this can be shown using readily available information; and/or
• New and relevant information that was not previously available and which affects the decision we made.

Without this we will not normally review the decision.

We can take a review request over the phone (and may have to if this is an agreed reasonable adjustment), but we prefer them in writing as it reduces misunderstandings. The review request does not have to come on the review request form. Whatever we receive we need to be clear it is a review request, rather than ‘last words’ or a query. If in doubt, ask the complainant if this is a review request.

Public Reports are not subject to the review process. They are the Ombudsman’s decisions and can only be challenged by judicial review.

2.2 Investigators (and Assessment Managers where they have made the decision)

Investigators will, if asked, tell the complainant our review procedure, even if this is before they have made a decision using the factsheet 'Your complaint, our decision'.  They should explain that we will only review final decisions, not drafts through this procedure. Investigators should normally therefore not send the PDR request form until they issue the final decision.

Investigators may decide, based on the likelihood of a subsequent review request, to send the factsheet and request form out at the same time as their final decision, but this is optional.

If, after making a decision, a complainant says they want to ask for a review, the Investigator or the Team Coordinator should send a review form and factsheet ‘Your complaint, our decision’ that explains the grounds for requesting a review.

Whenever we receive a valid review request, unless it is clear the complainant has already seen the factsheet, we must send them a copy with the acknowledgement of a valid review. If the review request is invalid the factsheet can be sent with the response.

Investigators should generally not engage in discussion of closed cases, but direct complainants to the review process. In some cases, the complainant may ask a valid question, which justifies a response, but Investigators should be very careful not to be drawn into post-decision discussion of a case. As a rule of thumb if the Investigator is thinking of sending more than one post decision communication to the complainant they may want to send the ‘No further contact’ letter.

If the new information or comments demonstrate to the Investigator their decision is questionable, they should take appropriate action themselves; if necessary reopening the case and resuming work on it.

2.3 Reviewer

The reviewer will send the complainant a decision on the review within 20 working days of us receiving the review request (not the date it was allocated or passed to the reviewer). If they cannot do this, they should send the complainant a Keeping in Touch letter. It should normally be possible to carry out a review based on the evidence already received.

If the complainant asks for extra time to submit further evidence, the reviewer may decide to agree to this. If they do, they should reset the 20-working day period from its receipt by amending the ‘request date’ on the PDR screen in ECHO. An acknowledgement letter confirming this should be sent. If the reviewer decides not to agree to this because they have all the information needed for a review and do not need extra information then they should explain why in an acknowledgement letter.

The reviewer should carefully consider any agreed reasonable adjustments when responding to a review request and have regard to them in their correspondence.

As a minimum, the reviewer should always read the final decision, the information form (setting out the investigator’s summary of the review and their comments) and the post decision review request itself. They may want to read other casework documents, depending on what they consider necessary in order to make a sound review decision.

The reviewer’s options are that:

1. The information provided is not enough to justify a review so this is an invalid review request
2. The request is too late, and the complainant has not given any good reasons why this is
3. The decision is sound, justified and adequately explained
4. The decision is sound and justified but non-substantive corrections are needed to the statement of reasons (for example incorrect dates/typos that are not material to the decision itself)
5. The decision is sound and justified, but further explanation is needed (where the decision about not investigating, ending our investigation or our findings on mal and inj is fundamentally correct, but the investigator hasn’t properly explained their reasoning for their decision)
6. The statement of reasons needs to be amended and explained (substantive) – (where the decision is not correct and must be changed and reissued for example because of risk of successful judicial review)
7. The decision is not sound and justified and the case should be reopened.

Options a-d are recorded as being not upheld reviews. Options e-f are recorded as upheld reviews. The distinction between options d) and e) is therefore particularly sensitive.

To decide which of these two options to follow, the reviewer should consider whether any changes they make to the statement of reasons are:

• amendments for clarification (for example because of a point raised by the complainant in the review), or a minor factual amendment (for example to a date where this is not materially significant to the decision) - option d above;
• substantial changes that have to be made because of mistakes by the Investigator (for example in understanding and / or applying our jurisdiction) – option e above.

Where the statement of reasons, as issued, leaves us at risk of Judicial Review, option f should be selected – for example where the decision includes incorrect use of standard paragraphs or where the investigator has used the wrong threshold for their decision (for example ‘I cannot be certain’ rather than ‘This probably happened’).

If, in Investigation, further enquiries are required (option g), the reviewer will decide who should deal with the case. Generally the case should be passed back to the original Investigator unless the relationship has broken down. This should be discussed and agreed with the Investigator’s line manager.

In Investigation in no circumstance will the reviewer reinvestigate the case. They will concentrate on the points the complainant has raised, but if they think the Investigator has misunderstood a jurisdictional point the complainant has not raised they will also consider that.

The reviewer will only change the decision (for example, from no fault to fault or to the correct jurisdictional reason),or ask for it to be reopened where the Investigator has made a mistake in our jurisdiction, or has clearly misinterpreted information, or new evidence or other reason shows the original decision is unsound.

The reviewer will not change a decision if, although they would not have made that decision themselves, the decision is within the range of acceptable Ombudsman decisions. In other words, do not change a decision just because the reviewer would give different weight to evidence.

If the reviewer thinks the decision is wrong they may discuss this with the Investigator before making a formal decision. They will normally provide a draft of their decision letter to the Investigator for comments before sending. But this should not delay the decision on the review if, for example the Investigator is on leave.

Review requests may focus on the adequacy of remedies. In such cases the reviewer will consider whether the agreed actions comply in general terms with the Compliance Manual and any other advice sought by the Investigator, for example through a subject forum. As above the reviewer will not criticise an investigator’s decision if it is within the range of acceptable decisions.

Reviews are an important part of our approach to quality checking. This is set out in our Quality & Standards Manual. This explains how reviewers should consider the management of the case having regard to the LGSCO’s quality standards – for example checking the decision statement complies with the standards for readability.

Reviewers should always consider and identify examples of good practice and constructive feedback for Investigators as well as looking at the other matters under review. Where a review is upholding an Investigator’s decision without change, or only making minor (non-substantive) changes, reviewers should not be overly critical. However, where a decision, whilst within the range of acceptable decisions, needed extensive corrections or rewriting for clarity, attention should be drawn through quality checking.

Where a complainant uses racist or other discriminatory language in their complaint or review request, or where the phone or other communication records show evidence of their use of racist or other discriminatory language, the Investigator and/or reviewer should always robustly challenge that in their response, including when upholding parts or all of their review request or complaint.

After deciding a review, the reviewer will complete the relevant ECHO screen. They will note any lessons learnt in the relevant section. The reviewer will let the Investigator and their manager know the result of the review by setting a task in ECHO. They will send the review outcome to the complainant/representative.

If the outcome of the review is a reopened complaint, the reviewer should also inform the BinJ using the standard letter template, advising them we will be in touch with more details.

The reviewer deals with any post review correspondence about the review though may also refer to the original Investigator if necessary. Generally, there should be no further action and no further contact, though a standard letter can be used (see section 4 for more detail).

If a review request also contains a complaint about us (CAU) it will be dealt with by the reviewer. Both the relevant ECHO screen and the Service Complaint screen need to be completed. Details about how to complete these are given in following sections.