Post Decision Review (PDR) and Service Complaints Manual

6. Dealing with Review requests - ECHO administration

6.1   How to complete the ‘Other Contact’ screen when the review request is rejected

If an invalid review request is rejected this should be recorded in the ‘Other contact’ screen. The nature of request is ‘Investigator review request’ – this option should be used whether the request comes in at Assessment or Investigation. Assessment Investigators should not use the “Assessment decision review” option in this instance.

The two outcomes which should be used for a rejection are -

  • Investigator responded/AO responded and 
  • Invalid review request:

The ‘actual date’ should be the date Investigator (Assessment) or the AO (Investigation) either decided they would carry out the further work, or sent the relevant rejection letter. The ‘date of outcome’ should be the same as the ‘actual date’.

6.2   How to complete the ‘PDR screen’ when the manager rejects the review request as out of time 

This should be used when the request is too late, and the complainant has not given any good reasons why we should exercise our discretion.

6.3 How to complete the ‘PDR screen’ when a valid review request is completed 

This procedure is to be followed in scenarios f-k set out at 3.6 above. The PDR screen records two separate but related sets of information:

1. The outcome of the review request; and 

2. The final decision about the complaint itself.

The simplest way to explain it is to give a few scenarios. All review responses from a reviewer (not an Investigator) should be saved to the ‘Decision and PDR decision’ folder in ECHO in line with our data retention guidelines about what is kept in the decision folder.

When we uphold a PDR, the ‘lessons learned' field should be used to summarise significant quality concerns and lessons learned, including about a) exercise of discretion and/or transparency of process and b) impartiality, clarity and evidence-based decision-making.

It should answer / comment on particularly significant issues with respect to the following standards, even when this is picked up in other fields:

  • We exercise discretion fairly and consistently and are transparent about the process we follow.
  • Our investigations and assessments are impartial, and we make clear, evidence-based decisions.

Managers could also cut and paste those questions into the box they use on their own crib sheet when carrying out a PDR or CAU to ensure they focus on the key points to pick up in ER1 /ER3

The outcome of the review is one of the following:

Decision sound and justified and adequately explained, Decision sound & justified, non-substantive corrections needed to SOR, or Decision sound and justified but further explanation needed

The PDR Decision date would be the date the reviewer wrote to the complainant to explain their decision about the review request and to confirm that the decision about the complaint was correct. The Investigation Status field and PDR Decision would be exactly the same as the original complaint decision and the Decision By would be the reviewer’s name.

As an aide-memoire, the original decision is noted at the top of the PDR screen. It is important to make sure that the correct decision reason is entered as the reports to identify overturned decisions are based on a comparison of what is in the original decision box and what is in the PDR decision box. If you make a mistake and put in a different decision reason to the original one, the complaint will appear as a complaint where the original complaint decision has been overturned, and ECHO reports will pick up the wrong decision date.

This scenario can include cases where the reviewer decides to reissue the final decision with minor amendments but where the decision reason and date is unchanged, for example where the complainant has pointed out incorrect dates, or where a complaint summary needs correction to bring it into line with our written standards. In these scenarios the reviewer can choose whether to issue an amended final decision to the complainant and body in jurisdiction, or to make corrections by covering letter. If this is by letter the final decision should be marked not for publication.

Judicial Review runs from the date of the review decision.

The reviewer should send the decision letter to the complainant. Managers are not expected to telephone the complainant about the review. The standard letter does not contain the reviewer’s phone number or email address. The reviewer may choose to remove their phone number from the covering email. The review decision is final and there is no further review.

The case owner should be altered through case properties back to the name of the original Investigator. Do not change the “Date changed” line. This date is linked to the allocation date and the time the Investigator took to come to a decision. A task should be set for the investigator and their manager referring to the outcome and quality screen (see section 11) 

The case should then be closed.

Decision amended and explained (substantive)

In these cases, while no further enquiries are needed, we are altering the decision in a substantive way. For example, where the decision reason is wrongly recorded as an absolute bar, when there was discretion. The reviewer can decide whether to do this by issuing an amended final decision or by letter. If this is by letter, the final decision should be marked not for publication.

The difference between using this decision reason and the previous decision reasons is that here, the reviewer is satisfied that they can issue a new final decision making substantive changes without reopening the investigation and without giving both parties the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. The corrections are matters of fact, or concerning the correct exercise of our jurisdiction.

A reviewer would have normally explained the reasons for the change with the Investigator and, if necessary, their manager, before issuing a review decision of this kind so long as this does not delay the decision. If the reviewer makes changes by letter rather than amending the decision, the decision should be marked not for publication.

The PDR decision date would be the date the manager wrote to the complainant to explain their decision about the review request and to explain what the new decision about the complaint was. The Investigation Status field and PDR Decision would be the new decision reason and the Decision By would be the reviewer’s name.

Judicial Review runs from the date of the new decision.

The reviewer should send the revised final decision to the complainant and BinJ with a covering letter explaining why the decision has changed. The standard letter does not normally contain the reviewer’s phone number. The reviewer may remove their phone number from the covering email.

The case owner should be altered through case properties back to the name of the original Investigator. Do not change the “Date changed” line. This date is linked to the allocation date and the time the Investigator took to come to a decision. A task should be set for the Investigator and their manager referring to the outcome and quality screen (see section 11).

The case should then be closed.

Decision not sound and justified – further enquiries needed (substantive) 

This is for a reopened case. As the reviewer, you will not enter anything in the Investigation Status Field, PDR Decision field or PDR Decision Date. The only fields to complete are the Response Due, Action taken upon request, Response to Requestor, Decision By and Outcome of Request fields. The original decision statement needs moving from the statement for publication folder into the decision folder.

A reviewer generally will have explained the outcome of their review with the Investigator and their manager before issuing a review decision of this kind. Both the complainant and BinJ need to be notified of the outcome of the review and that the case has been reopened and who it has been passed to. There is a letter template for telling the BinJ a complaint has been reopened. The reviewer will explain what parts of the case are being reopened; it may only be a small part that is not sound, not the whole investigation. A task should be set for the original Investigator and their manager referring to the outcome and quality screen (see section 11).

Usually a case will be given back to the original Investigator in which case the case owner should be altered through case properties back to the name of the original Investigator. If this is done, the reviewer should not change the ‘date changed’ line which is linked to the allocation date and so, as the case has been reopened will continue to record the time the Investigator takes to come to a new decision. The reviewer must not close the case.

However in exceptional circumstances it may be allocated to someone else. The reviewer will discuss this with the line manager of the original Investigator. Once a decision has been made the case owner should be altered through case properties to the new Investigator and the case should remain open. The new Investigator’s TC should, in this scenario, change the ‘date changed’ line to the date the case is allocated to a new Investigator.

The person carrying out the further enquiries needs to record their work in the PDR Enquiries and PV tabs. Do not regress the case in ECHO to the decision screen. When they make their decision about the complaint, they should complete the Investigation Status, PDR Decision and PDR Decision Date fields in the Post Decision Review screen. Obviously, this may be a different complaint decision to the original one, or it may be the same.

Judicial Review runs from the date of the new decision.

The case owner should be left as the name of the Investigator who carried out the further work and made the revised decision. Once made the case should be closed.

If you find you have a review which does not fit in with any of the above examples, please ring the Systems Administrator to discuss the most appropriate way to complete the PDR screens.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings