Agenda item

 

To consider the Annual Compliments and Complaints Report 2024/25

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance & Community Safety introduced the report noting this was the annual report covering formal compliments and complaints for the 2024-25 financial year. Overall complaints received by the Council decreased by 1%. Complaints remained an important tool for learning and improving services.

 

The report included performance data broken down by Council directorates, enabling assessment at both Council and team levels. Complaints were noted as valuable for identifying issues, checking processes, and making necessary apologies and corrections. The Council had continued to make it easier for people to complain through multiple channels, including writing, email, and text.

 

Headline figures showed compliments increased from 902 to 1,309 (a 45% rise), continuing the year-on-year upward trend. Social Care recorded the largest increase, followed by Environment Services and Housing. Most complaints were resolved at Stage One, with only four reaching Stage Three for Member Review Panel consideration.

 

The Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services gave a presentation on the annual compliments and complaints report for the period up to March 2025, highlighting key points. It was reported that previous recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) had been addressed, including an all-member session in March covering complaint management procedures and member roles.

 

Headline figures showed complaints decreased slightly by 1%, from 1,212 to 1,198. This was still the third-highest total in the past five years, indicating further work was needed.

 

The graph in the presentation showed complaints (red line) rising over previous years, followed by a slight drop and levelling off last year. It was noted that further reduction was needed. Compliments (green line) continued to rise steadily over five years, increasing from 902 to 1,309 last year, largely driven by Adult Care.

 

Of the 1,198 complaints received, 369 (31%) were upheld, an increase from 294 the previous year, though the proportion remained consistent at around one-third. The largest category was quality of service, followed by lack of service and staff conduct/attitude, which decreased compared to the previous year. Most complaints (93.5%) were resolved at Stage One; 42 progressed to Stage Two and only four reached Stage Three.

 

By directorate, Housing and Regeneration & Environment recorded the highest complaint volumes. Regeneration & Environment saw the largest absolute increase, rising from 373 to 468 (25%), followed by Children and Young People’s Services.

 

Housing complaints decreased from 615 to 471, and the Assistant Chief Executive’s directorate reduced from five to three. Public Health remained at zero complaints.

 

The increase in Regeneration & Environment was mainly due to waste management issues from the previous year, rising from 165 to 267. Children and Young People’s Services also saw an increase in EHCP-related complaints, from 14 to 24, reflecting a national challenge. Despite the higher volume of complaints, Regeneration & Environment achieved the largest improvement in timeliness, increasing from 79% to 85%, meeting the Council’s target. Overall, 81% of complaints were responded to within timescales, compared to 82% the previous year, still below the 85% target. Finance and Customer Services recorded the highest performance at 88%. Adult Care improved slightly from 75% to 77%.

 

It was noted that work would continue with service managers to improve timeliness. The matter would be discussed further with the Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence and Complaints Manager to review processes. Reference was made to previous improvements achieved on Freedom of Information requests, and it was emphasised that responsibility for timely responses rests with management, not solely the complaints team.

 

Compliments increased by 45%, from 902 to 1,309, mainly driven by Adult Social Care, which doubled its numbers. Regeneration & Environment also saw a 40% rise (85 more), and Housing increased by 38% (77 more). While this may suggest improved customer satisfaction, further analysis was needed to confirm.

 

The Next steps included:

• Continuing training for frontline staff to reinforce their role in shaping customer experience.
• Improving timeliness of complaint responses.
• Rolling out reporting dashboards for managers to access complaint data more easily.
• Enhancing processes for recording and sharing compliments.
• Completing the annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
• Streamlining complaint handling with Customer Services through system automation to reduce delays in directing complaints to the appropriate officers.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised and began by noting that 31% of complaints were upheld. What lessons were learned from these cases? The Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services noted that complaints varied widely, and feedback was always provided to managers. Responsibility for addressing issues lay with service areas. Examples included benefit entitlement complaints, where outcomes could not be changed, and complaints about staff attitude or handling of service issues, which were addressed through training and discussions with officers. The importance of tone and customer interaction was emphasised. Complaints were not lost in the corporate process but dealt with by management. Capturing learning consistently across all areas remained a challenge.

 

The Complaints Manager explained that learning from complaints fell into two categories: capturing and applying lessons. Managers investigating complaints were required to identify learning, which was recorded and reported at management meetings monthly, quarterly, and annually. Some findings were included in the annual report. Common themes included:

• Staff performance issues addressed through supervision and training.
• Communication gaps where clearer updates to customers could have prevented complaints.
• Strategic process improvements to close service gaps.

 

It was noted that Housing had embedded a Tenants Learning from Complaints Panel, working with Rotherfed to review complaints and associated learning. Feedback from tenants was fed into housing management meetings to support service improvements, providing valuable resident insight beyond internal review.

 

Councillor McKiernan noted the absence of other strategic directors, given that many topics discussed fell under their portfolios. The use of the term “customers” in the report was queried, suggesting most were residents rather than business customers. Councillor McKiernan confirmed his first question on trends in upheld complaints had been answered and asked why compliments had increased, particularly in Adult Social Care. It was queried whether this was due to proactive requests for feedback or surveys.

 

The Complaints Manager explained that compliments were largely unsolicited feedback from residents, not actively requested by the Council. However, managers were encouraged to forward compliments for logging rather than leaving them informal. This approach helped ensure compliments were recorded alongside complaints. Some services, such as Community Occupational Therapy, routinely surveyed customers after visits and efficiently submitted positive feedback, resulting in higher recorded compliments.

 

Councillor Yasseen noted that compliments had increased significantly in some areas, notably Adult Social Care and Regeneration. How could members be assured that learning from these positive outcomes was shared across other directorates where complaints remained high? Members had not seen any evidence of other directorates adopting the practices that worked well in Adult Social Care. In response the Complaints Manager noted there was a competitive element in collecting compliments, with Adult Social Care and Housing encouraged to compare results. Services were reminded to capture compliments during resident engagement and forward them to the complaints team for logging. Techniques such as surveys and follow-up work were highlighted as effective in increasing recorded compliments.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services acknowledged that compliments were harder to encourage compared to complaints, which were usually driven by service failures. Compliments were generally unsolicited, though residents could submit them via the website. The point was raised about asking for feedback at the point of service or resolution, which could involve Customer Services and frontline staff. This would be explored further to improve how compliments are captured and used for learning.

 

On terminology, it was noted that most interactions were with residents, though “customers” was sometimes used where services were purchased. Feedback on this point was accepted. The absence of other directors was also noted, and this would be fed back as their input was important for answering service-specific questions.

 

Councillor Yasseen suggested utilising positive feedback more effectively, noting the Council’s role as the largest employer in Rotherham. A suggestion was proposed regarding sharing compliments, with resident consent, through newsletters and local communications to highlight good work and reflect the efforts of staff, many of whom are local.

 

Councillor Brent noted that while many directorates, such as Housing and Regeneration & Environment, were obvious points for complaints and compliments, some areas like Children and Young People’s Services (CYPS) might not be. It was queried how complaints or compliments received by schools, which delivered education on behalf of the Council, were captured, as these did not appear to be included in the report.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services agreed that the point was valid and needed consideration. Current reporting covered complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Code, but wider feedback from commissioned services or schools was not routinely captured. The challenge of collecting broader data without disrupting service delivery was acknowledged, and the matter would be reviewed to explore possible solutions. Similar gaps were noted in areas such as Public Health and housing providers, where complaints and compliments often sit with commissioned services. The aim would be to find ways to capture this information to support improvement and recognition.

 

Councillor A Carter reflected on terminology, noting that “customer” was an improvement compared to the previous use of “complainant,” though views differed on whether “resident” or “customer” was preferable. It was acknowledged that cultural change in how the organisation responded to complaints was still needed, but progress had been made.

 

Councillor Tinsley asked whether the complaints reported followed the formal procedure and raised the issue of defining what constituted a complaint. It was suggested that lower-level issues reported via the Council website, which residents may consider complaints, could be collated as separate data. Capturing this could provide earlier opportunities for service improvement and potentially generate compliments when issues are resolved promptly.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services agreed that while formal complaints must follow Ombudsman processes, the purpose of collecting data was to use it meaningfully. The point was made that many contacts from residents are not formal complaints but service requests or queries, and these interactions could provide valuable insight. Capturing all types of contact, whether formal or informal, could help identify trends and improve services. The challenge of integrating this broader data into reporting was acknowledged, and the suggestion would be considered further.

 

In a further response the Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence confirmed that service requests, such as missed bin collections or pothole reports, were recorded and fed into the relevant services for monitoring and management. This data was reviewed through management and directorate meetings to ensure a complete picture of service performance. Councillor Tinsley noted that the lack of follow-up after service requests was a missed opportunity. It was suggested that an easier process for confirming satisfaction could be considered, rather than requiring residents to search online for the formal complaints’ procedure. Many residents might assume they had already complained, leaving issues unresolved and feedback uncollected.

 

In a further question, Councillor Yasseen noted that while complaints had fallen by 1%, this offered limited assurance given that totals remained the third highest in five years. The need to view data over a longer period for better perspective was stressed. The 25% rise in complaints within Regeneration & Environment, particularly waste management, which had increased by 62%, excluding recent disruptions was highlighted.

 

Councillor Yasseen went on to express concern that key drivers of resident satisfaction, such as waste collection, street cleanliness, and green spaces, were not being prioritised, despite their significant impact on public perception.

It was asked how the Council could place greater emphasis on these universal services and respond more effectively when issues arise.

 

In response to these points the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services acknowledged that the statistics confirmed public dissatisfaction with certain services, but the underlying reasons were already known and taken seriously. Complaints data was valuable for showing the scale and impact on residents rather than identifying unknown issues. The Council used this information corporately to inform improvements and ensure feedback loops were strengthened, including better communication with residents about progress.

 

Work was underway with Customer Services to create an end-to-end feedback process to reduce repeat contacts. Broader service demand data was also monitored. Examples included housing complaints related to damp and mould, which prompted increased Council activity to address the issue. All complaints data was reviewed at senior levels to ensure action on key service concerns.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted that services such as waste management involved millions of interactions annually, so any increase in complaints was taken seriously and reviewed alongside wider data sources, including crew feedback and operational systems. Complaints were one of many measures used to inform decisions on service improvements and investment. An example was given where missed collections were often due to large refuse vehicles accessing narrow streets. In response, Cabinet approved investment in narrow-access vehicles, which were now in operation and reducing related complaints. This illustrated how complaint data, combined with other insights, informed practical service improvements.

 

Councillor Yasseen asked whether the Council used national comparators, such as the LGA satisfaction survey, to benchmark performance. It was noted that previous national surveys, like the former Place Survey, had not been replaced and queried if metrics such as the LGA’s 76% satisfaction rate for waste collection were used to assess improvement needs against national averages. The Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence confirmed that benchmarking was undertaken using national and local surveys. The Council continued to run its own resident satisfaction survey, which provided useful feedback on key issues and informed core metrics within the Council Plan. Comparisons with national data were possible but limited, as not all areas conducted similar surveys and statistical differences made direct comparisons challenging. Work was ongoing to align the next local survey with the national survey and to obtain Yorkshire and Humber data for broader context.

 

The Vice-Chair noted that residents expected basic services to be delivered correctly and expressed frustration when simple issues were not addressed proactively. Examples included pothole repairs and pavement moss clearance, where additional visible issues were left unresolved, requiring separate reports.

 

It was suggested that some complaints could be avoided through more proactive processes and asked how member casework was utilised within the compliance process, noting its potential value in identifying trends and informing improvements. The Chair added that casework often involved complaints about council services and queried its role in the complaints procedure.

 

The Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence confirmed that when casework was clearly flagged as a formal complaint, it was logged in the system, passed to the complaints team, and managed through the standard process, with responses provided to both the resident and the member.  Broader casework trends were reviewed by the Customer Experience Board, alongside other metrics such as call volumes and web demand. Those datasets were triangulated to identify recurring issues, trends, and areas requiring further investigation or action.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that member casework was reviewed both individually and cumulatively. Individual issues were addressed by service managers, while aggregated casework data was included in regular performance reports to identify trends and inform service improvements.

 

In response to concerns about proactive behaviours, it was noted that expectations for officers to assess the wider environment during tasks were set by Cabinet and senior management. While these behaviours were encouraged, operational constraints sometimes required prioritisation based on the Highway Management Code, which defined repair urgency. Nonetheless, managers committed to reviewing individual cases and learning from them to improve services.

 

A question was raised by the Vice-Chair regarding complaints about street bins not being emptied, as the data primarily focused on household waste. It was noted that during the latter part of the reporting period, there were numerous complaints, including observations within wards of overflowing street bins. Clarification was sought on the process for ensuring bins were emptied properly and how operatives reported issues to improve scheduling. The query also asked whether there had been an increase in complaints about street bins during that time. At this point the Chair reminded members that the discussion should relate to the previous year and not the current year.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted that a recent workshop held with members of OSMB had reviewed the data, which showed a spike in complaints during an unseasonably hot bank holiday weekend, leading to increased bin usage. More broadly, the council had invested in additional operatives and a new IT system to replace outdated processes. This system enabled operatives to record bin fullness and report overflows, allowing data-driven adjustments to collection schedules. These measures aimed to proactively manage demand and prevent issues.

 

A query was raised by Councillor Baggley, about how complaints were managed within required timeframes and how delays were avoided when progressing from Stage 1 to Stage 3. Clarification was also sought on how complaints were classified in reports, particularly when they spanned an annual period, whether by the date received or the date closed. The Complaint Manager confirmed that all formal complaints were performance-managed through weekly dashboards, showing in-time and out-of-time cases to managers at all levels. Monthly and quarterly reports were also provided, and the complaints team chased managers individually to ensure timely handling. Where possible, complaints were resolved quickly to avoid lengthy Stage 2 investigations, though this could occasionally delay escalation. Escalation times were governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s code and, from April 2026, by the new Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman code. Data reported included all complaints received and resolved within the period.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1. Noted the Annual Compliments and Complaints Report for 2024/25.
2. Agreed that future reports included data to demonstrate that complaints raised through the member casework system were dealt with through the Complaints process.
3. Agreed that detail should be provided, in future reports, of improvements put in place arising from the learning of complaints, including how this is applied across the Council and not just in the particular Department or Directorate affected.