Statement of Reasons Manual
Part 3
3. What decision statements will be published?
3. What decision statements will be published?
3.1. The statutory basis of our power to publish decision statements is:
- Section 31B(1)(a) and (d) of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974, and
- Section 34J(1)(a) and (c) of Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 (privately arranged and funded adult social care).
3.2. We publish every decision made on complaints received from 1 April 2013, unless any of the reasons below apply. Publication will happen no sooner than six weeks after the final decision is made. We will publish decisions taken at both Assessment and Investigation stages.
3.3. We can decide not to publish decisions in the following circumstances – when:
- a. the decision is that the complaint is premature
- b. a review of the decision is underway
- c. we consider that it is not in the interests of the person or others affected to publish the decision(*), for example, where:
- the issues are sensitive, unusual or controversial and publication runs a risk that the person affected or others may, but should not, be identifiable (*)
- we agree to a request from the person affected or others that we should not publish (*).
- d. The complaint refers to an adult social care provider who is a sole trader/proprietor and we consider it is not in the public interest to publish their identity (*).
- e. The complaint decision is that it is an employment or personnel matter (see Appendix 2).
- f. when we decide there are other specific grounds that we consider mean we should not publish the decision (*)
We must not publish a Decision Statement in the following scenarios concerned with consent (see also casework guidance statement on consent):
- g. When a person affected cannot give consent and we decide a representative is unsuitable – in which case we close as ‘Out of jurisdiction: Discretion not exercised: Section 26A 2(b) Not a suitable person or representative
- h. If a person affected has given us consent for the representative to act, but other factors in the case lead us to decide the representative is not acceptable, in which case we should close using our general discretion under section 24A (6) ‘Other reason not to investigate’
- i. When we decide not to investigate a ‘whistleblowing’ complaint about a body in jurisdiction, for example because there is an organisation better placed to consider the allegations, we must not publish our decision or send that decision to the BinJ concerned. In those circumstances we may notify the BinJ of the closure of the case but it must not be given any details of the case.
In these two scenarios the Body in Jurisdiction may need to be notified of the closure if it is aware of the complaint. It must not be given any details of the case.
The bullet points above that end with an (*) symbol should be agreed between the Investigator and Assessment Manager / Assistant Ombudsman. Following that discussion, the ‘Details’ section of the Publication screen on ECHO should be completed (usually by the manager) summarising the reason for non-publication, confirming the casework manager’s agreement to the decision not to publish. Note you do not also need to set out this information in Notes and Analysis.
3.4. Exception c) above is intended to allow exemption from publication of any decision statement which cannot be written in a way which protects the complainant’s or another person’s anonymity. Where Investigators consider that this exception applies, they must obtain the approval of their Assistant Ombudsman/Assessment Manager and explain the reasons for this, confirming the manager approval in the ‘Details’ section of the Publication screen on ECHO.
3.5. Exception d) above, the fact that a BinJ in Part 3A cases may be a sole trader is not enough for us to decide not to publish a decision statement. The Ombudsman has a responsibility to ensure that we give an accurate picture of the decisions we make. In doing so, we are contributing to the public accountability of care provision and helping to support informed choice of providers for the public. We must however consider whether it is in the public interest to publish these cases. More guidance is set out in section 8.3 of this guidance including a flowchart setting out the approach we expect to follow..
3.6 If we decide that a decision statement should not be published after it appears on the website, it can be removed by contacting the External Communications Officer with the following details:
- the case reference number
- the reason for removal from the website
- whether you have approval from your line manager (AO/AM)
- whether the decision will be republished at a later date.
3.7 If we decide that a decision statement needs amending after it appears on the website, it can be amended by contacting the External Communications Officer with the following details:
- the case reference number
- the paragraph number of the text which needs amending
- the changes you wish to be made.
The ECHO record should be updated with the reason for not publication and casework manager approval being recorded in the ‘Details’ section of the Publication screen on ECHO.
3.8 Sometimes we need to change the publication flag from ‘yes’ to ‘no’ after a case has been closed. There have been a handful of cases where the flag has been changed to ‘no’ but the decision statement has already been exported to the website. If you need to change a publication flag, and there is information in the Exported field on the screen, this means the decision statement has already published. You should contact the External Communications Officer as set out in 3.6 so she can arrange for the decision statement to be removed from the website and the data in the publication screen to be reset. The graphic below shows an example of the screen where the exported field has been filled in.
3.9 Decision statements will remain on the website for five years.