On receipt of a review request the Investigator who decided the complaint will consider the information provided and determine whether the criteria for a review have been met. This does not mean the Investigator is reviewing their own decision.

Some post decision correspondence might be ‘last words’ and will not need a response.

The decision about whether a case should be passed for review should be made promptly following receipt of the correspondence. This should normally be within three working days. If a request is received whilst an Investigator is on leave for more than one week it should be forwarded by the Team Coordinator to the Team Manager for a decision. If the manager decides that the correspondence is a valid review request, it should then be allocated for post decision review and the original Investigator tasked to complete an information form on their return. Once this form is complete, the Investigator should task the reviewer so they are aware.

Example scenarios are available at 3.6.

3.1 Is it a valid review request?

A valid review request should have

• 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.

A letter rejecting a request for a review is not a response to the substantive matters the complainant is raising, but an objective judgment the review request does not meet the criteria.
 

3.2     Not a valid review request - Assessment & Joint Working Assessment

If the complainant has clearly not met the criteria needed for a review, the Investigator should tell the complainant they will not pass the decision for review. (Standard letter ‘PDR rejection letter no new info from Assessment Inv’ can be used.) There is no need to complete the PDR Information Form. This should be recorded on the ‘Other Contact’ screen as ‘Investigator review request’ as the Nature of Contact, and ‘’Investigator Responded’ and ‘Invalid review request’ as the Action Taken, as well as completing the other fields.

Where an Assessment Team Coordinator (ATC) has made a premature decision and this is challenged these are not substantive decisions; they are a procedural matter to be satisfied before we assess/investigate the substance. So the ATC may reject a challenge at first instance, but if the complainant persists the ATC will normally pass to the line Assessment Manager for response.

If an invalid review request and a service complaint are received together the Investigator/ATC should discuss with their AM how the review request will be responded to.  

If the Investigator considers the request for a review is late but the other grounds for review appear to have been met this decision is discretionary and so can only be made by the reviewer. So the case should be passed for review.

If the complainant challenges the Investigator’s decision that the criteria for review have not been met, the Investigator should hold the line unless the complainant is unreasonably persistent or tries to frame it as a service complaint. If the complainant tries to make a service complaint about the ‘not a review’ decision this should be passed to an Assessment Manager for them to respond to.

If the decision is to pass the case for review, record the ‘request date’ on the Other Contact screen as the date we agreed to review the decision. This will be a separate decision and a new entry on the Other Contact screen.

Example scenarios are available at 3.6.

3.3     Not a valid review request - Investigation & Joint Working Investigation

If the complainant has clearly not met the criteria needed for a review, the Investigator should draft the rejection letter in their AO’s name. There is no need to complete the PDR Information Form. The Investigator then sets a task for their AO. The AO checks and amends the letter if necessary and then sends it. It is the AO’s decision and they should be happy with the letter and the decision. This must be recorded on the ‘Other Contact’ screen, using ‘Investigator Review Request ‘ as Nature of Contact and ‘AO responded' and ‘Invalid review request’ in the ‘Action taken’ field (as well as completing the other fields). If an invalid review request and a service complaint are received together the Investigator should draft the review response and the AO should add the service complaint response.

The only exception is if the investigator considers the request for a review is late but the other grounds for review appear to have been met. This decision is discretionary and so can only be made by the reviewer. So the case should be passed for review.

If the complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision the review request is not valid the AO will respond with a ‘no further contact’ letter. We do not accept ‘Complaints about us’ when the complaint is about a decision or decision on a review request. We only revisit the decision not to review a case if the complainant starts JR proceedings.

The Investigator and AO retain the discretion to pass the request for a review, even if the request does not meet the criteria – for example a particularly challenging complainant or a high possibility of a judicial review.

Example scenarios are available at 3.6.
 

3.4     A valid review request – the Investigator decided more work is needed

If the Investigator considers the information provided justifies reopening the complaint, they should do so. Exceptionally, where the relationship has broken down irretrievably, the Investigator should raise the matter with their manager to consider reallocation. If the complainant has provided information which meets the criteria for a review and the Investigator does not consider the case should be re-opened, they should pass the case for review.

If the Investigator decides to re-open the case themselves and carry out further work –

Assessment – Delete the Assessment- Early decision tab. They should also inform the complainant and the BinJ that they have reopened the case and the decision no longer stands.

Investigation - Delete the decision screen and if necessary move the case back to PV or Investigation. If they do not delete the decision when they re-open the case, the case will not appear on the Investigator’s ‘in progress’ report. They should also inform the complainant and the BinJ that they have reopened the case and the decision no longer stands.

If the Investigator considers the information provided justifies reopening the complaint, they should do so. There is no need to complete the other contact screen if so.

If in any doubt, the Investigator should seek advice from their manager.

3.5     A valid review request and to be passed for review

The Investigator must complete the PDR Information Form. This must deal with the major points the complainant has raised. The form has guidance to help Investigators complete it. Example scenarios of a valid review are available at 3.6.

The Investigator must ask a Team Coordinator to send the complainant an acknowledgment that the case has gone to review and pass it to the reviewer. The Team Coordinator should check the Review factsheet has been sent to the complainant.

For Assessment valid reviews are recorded on the Other Contact screen. For Investigation valid Reviews are recorded on the PDR Screen in ECHO workflow.

Sometimes an Investigator may have made several related decisions concerning the same complainant. These may have the same subject category, or be recorded against different categories. The complainant may then make multiple post decision review requests.

Where the Investigator decides two or more of these meet our criteria to pass on for post decision review, and it makes sense to do so, they should generally be dealt with by a single reviewer. This ensures consistency of decision making and eliminates duplication of work at review.

The Investigator should let their Team Coordinator know when different reviews should be dealt with by a single reviewer. The Team Coordinator should send a single review acknowledgement covering both cases.
 

3.6     Examples – is it a review request or not?

As with any list of examples these cannot cover all scenarios. If in doubt, ask your Line Manager.

1. In Assessment the complainant asks for a review in a case where we did not send a draft view.  The Investigator should either -

• treat this as a review request and reject it as invalid; or
• treat this as a valid review request and pass it to a reviewer; or
• reopen the case and pass to Investigation / carry out further work.

1. In Investigation the complainant says they did not get the draft decision and makes comments on the decision. The Investigator should treat this as a late response to a draft decision and respond as if they had not made the decision. The options are to:

• confirm that the decision made previously will not be changed;
• reopen the case and make a new decision with a different reason; in some cases a new draft view may be needed.

1. The complainant queries a fact in the decision, asks for more explanation of a point or says they do not want the decision published – but do not say that the decision is wrong. This is not a review request and the Investigator can reply to this. The Investigator must not get drawn into further correspondence after this as it is not a proportionate use of our resources.
2. The complainant says the BinJ has not provided some or all of the remedy agreed. This is not a review request. The Investigator should pass this to their Team Coordinator for them to check with the BinJ and respond to the complainant.
3. The complainant appears to be providing ‘last words’ and does not appear to be questioning the decision as such or asking for a review. This is probably not a review request and probably does not need a response. But Investigators should be careful that they do not ignore this, only later to be the subject of a review request and a service complaint that they did not respond. Your knowledge, as Investigator, of the complainant’s approach may help here. If in doubt, ask your manager.
4. The complainant challenges an absolute bar. If they give new reasons why the bar does not apply this is a review request. If not it is not a valid review.
5. The complainant questions the exercise of a discretionary bar. If they give new reasons why the bar does not apply this is a review request. If not it is not a valid review.
6. The complainant says the complaint investigated is not what was put to us by them. If on reading their arguments you disagree, this is a review request and the case should be passed for review. If you agree part of the complaint was missed, you should reopen the case.
7. The complainant says they do not accept the Investigator’s judgement or they want the matter investigated further. If they are repeating arguments the Investigator has already dealt with (even if not in as much detail as the complainant would want) and the Investigator is happy they have made a robust decision this is an invalid review request and should be treated as such.
8. The complainant says they do not accept the Investigator’s judgement or they want the matter investigated further. If the decision is one that is marginal and the Investigator feels a second view would be good to confirm their view this is a valid review request. This applies even if the complainant is repeating arguments the Investigator has already dealt with.

K.      The complainant requests a review which contains all the required information but it is outside of the one month time limit. This is a review request. The Investigator can either decide to reopen the investigation, carry out any further work as necessary and make a new decision or pass to a reviewer, who will decide whether there are good reasons to accept a late request or not.

L.       The complainant requests a review however it does not contain all the required information and is outside of the one month time limit. This is an invalid review request. When telling the complainant this the writer should add an extra paragraph to explain that the request is also late and if the complainant wants to pursue the review request, they will also need to provide good reasons why their request is late.

M.     The complainant states at closure that they intend to collect evidence to prove the information the council provided was false. After six months, the complainant comes back to the Investigator with evidence they have gathered. This is a review request and the Investigator has two options here.

• If the Investigator agrees the information alters their decision they can reopen the case, carry out any further work as necessary and make a new decision; in some cases a new draft view may be needed.
• If the Investigator considers the information does not change their decision in any substantive way, they should pass the case to a reviewer for a decision about whether to accept the late review request on the basis that the information was not available at an earlier date and therefore whether to provide a full response.

N.      The complainant provides new information which they consider changes the outcome of their complaint. This is a review request and the Investigator has two options here.

• If the Investigator agrees the information alters their decision they can reopen the case, carry out any further work as necessary and make a new decision; in some cases a new draft view may be needed.
• If the Investigator considers the information does not change their decision in anyway, they should pass the case to a reviewer for a response.