• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• The Ombudsman's Perspective on Progress in the Quality Customer Service Initiative - Briefing to the Quality Customer Service Working Group (7 Decembe

The Ombudsman's Perspective on Progress in the Quality Customer Service Initiative - Briefing to the Quality Customer Service Working Group (7 Decembe

The Ombudsman's Perspective on Progress in the Quality Customer Service Initiative - Briefing to the Quality Customer Service Working Group (7 December 1999)

Kevin Murphy, Ombudsman

Thank you for inviting me here today to brief you on my views as Ombudsman on the progress to-date of the Quality Customer Service Initiative. Some of you, I know, are very familiar with the work of my Office in your capacities as liaison officers for your individual Departments. Some of you have also consulted my Office on aspects of your own customer service action plans. You have asked me to comment on the evolution of quality customer service from the point of view of the volume and type of complaint being dealt with by my Office. In the brief time available I will touch on these areas, but I will also deal with some issues of current concern which are not directly complaint-related.

May I say that I heartily welcomed the 1997 QCS Initiative and I wish your group every success in its work. In my 1997 Annual Report, however, I sounded a note of caution on the use of the concept of customer. People dealing with public bodies have rights which must be respected and the public bodies in turn have corresponding obligations to the people who use the services offered. They differ in a number of important respects from customers of private sector firms not least in that in the latter case the law of contracts applies while administrative law governs my activities. I am fully in favour of each of the guiding principles for the delivery of quality customer service but for the purposes of this briefing I will concentrate on the provision of information, the necessity for internal complaints systems and the provision of a formal system of redress. If I were to add a further guiding principle, it would be the necessity to deal sensitively with clients or customers. More on these points later.

The institution of Ombudsman was conceived as an instrument of control or accountability by Parliament over the Executive. Just as Parliament tries to ensure the efficient and effective use of the resources which it votes to the Executive through the mechanism of the Comptroller and Auditor General, so too does it try to ensure, through the Ombudsman, that the extensive discretionary powers delegated to the Executive are exercised properly and fairly. As Ombudsman, I deal with complaints about improper, unfair and unsound administration, often referred to as maladministration. Complainants must show that they have been adversely affected by the actions of an agency within my remit. I have extensive investigative powers and if I am satisfied that the action complained of is unfair or unsound, I can recommend that the agency provide redress. My recommendations are not binding but I do have the ultimate sanction of a special report to the Oireachtas if a recommendation in a formal investigation report is rejected. The Irish Ombudsman has never had to use his power to issue a special report in a complaint-related matter.

Given the nature of my remit, it is true that my reports inevitably highlight failings on the part of public service bodies but I also try to draw lessons from the complaints I examine and by so doing encourage higher standards in public administration and management. In addition to a basic Charter of Citizens' Rights in dealing with the public service, I have published a Guide to Best Practice for Public Servants and a Guide to Internal Complaints Systems. My criticisms are well-intentioned and I hope are of use to the agencies within my remit.

At international level, there is growing concern about what is called "good governance" embracing not only maladministration but also corruption and respect for human rights. A number of international financial bodies, concerned at the extent to which financial aid can be wasted, have approached the International Ombudsman Institute to see if the Institute could, for example, provide a certificate of good governance before international funds are given to governments in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. This raises the issue of the extent to which national complaints to the Ombudsman can be seen as measuring the performance of a particular body in relation to its clients.

Statistics

Complaints to the Ombudsman as a key performance indicator of QCS

A baseline survey of public awareness of the role and function of the Ombudsman conducted in 1997 as part of our own SMI programme found that, while there was a high level of public awareness of the existence of the Office (high, that is, by international standards), awareness of what we actually do was much lower. It is obvious that a significant determinant of the level of complaint to the Ombudsman is this awareness, as is the degree to which my Office is accessible to the public. This is something I am trying to improve, especially in the case of people in the less advantaged parts of Dublin.

It is also the case that significant areas of the public service remain outside my remit; I am hopeful, although at this stage not confident, that the long awaited Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill will soon address this issue. My point here is that an increase in the number of complaints about individual Departments or bodies may not be due to a disimprovement in the quality of service offered by the Department; paradoxically, it may be the case that as the level of service improves complaints to me may rise, though probably only in the short-term. This is particularly the case where Departments co-operate with my Office by informing the public of their right to complain to me. As public expectations of quality service rise, there is generally a greater propensity to complain when those expectations are not met. Of course, there is also the consideration that there may be significant change over time in the schemes and services operated by a public body.

In the brief time available today, I cannot hope to engage in a comprehensive statistical analysis of the numbers and types of complaint I receive, but I can point to some interesting trends. In his paper to you in November, Dr Humphreys referred to the Department Of the Taoiseach's 1997 survey which showed that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development account for over 90% of public contacts with the Civil Service. As Table 1 shows, these Departments taken together also account for approximately 80% of the complaints to my Office against the Civil Service.

Table 1 - Complaints against the Civil Service

	1986	1996	1997	1998	1999 (end Nov.)
DSCFA	1408	653	1007	786	629
Agriculture	99	220	223	198	264
Revenue	335	138	135	123	126
Total	1842	1011	1365	1107	1019
% of total complaints against the Civil Service	82%	82%	84%	79%	78%

Numbers of complaints to me, therefore, seem to accord with the amount of public contact with these Departments. In 1998, the Civil Service accounted for 48% of the total number of valid complaints made to me. Local Authorities and Health Boards made up 24% and 17% respectively, while the remaining 11% were about Telecom Éireann and An Post.

As can be seen from Table 1, there has been a significant decline in the number of complaints about DSCFA and Revenue over the long-term reflecting in my view the significant efforts they both have made to improve service to the public. It is true that complaints against DSCFA rose in 1997 when we experienced an upsurge in complaints following the publication of an investigation report into lost pension arrears. Complaints against the Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, have shown a significant increase over the years; a factor here is undoubtedly the number of income type EU schemes. In comparing Table 1 with Table 2, it is noteworthy that it seems that for the first time this year, Local Authorities may become a greater source of complaint to me than DSCFA.

Table 2 - Complaints by Sector

	1986	1996	1997	1998	1999 (end Nov.)
Civil Service	2247	1228	1632	1396	1308
Local Auth.	483	569	761	690	701
Health Boards	422	411	403	482	358
Telecom Éireann	1775	272	262	227	112*
An Post	69	56	68	81	69

*Telecom Éireann fell outside my remit from 15 July 1999.

Complaints against Local Authorities have risen consistently over the years.

The underlying strength of the economy in recent years may well be a major reason for this as building activity took off - analysis of the LA statistics shows that the largest single category of complaint in that sector now relates to planning enforcement. In my experience, however, it is certainly the case that the wider public service has yet to embrace the QCS initiative and this may also be a factor. Formal internal complaints systems are rare in the Local Authority Sector. The Eastern Health Board has had well a established internal complaints system since June '98 and the level of complaint to me against the Board this year shows a slight decline. On the other hand, the establishment of the Department of Agriculture's internal complaints system has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of complaints against that Department this year.

A more significant indicator of the performance of Departments may be the proportion of complaints to me in which I find either wholly or partly in favour of the complainant. The complaint result categories given in my Annual Report are not ideal for the purposes of this analysis, and my report for 1999 will introduce a new category of "partially resolved" which may prove more informative. Nevertheless, Table 3 gives some details of complaint result categories for the major "customer serving" Departments.

Table 3 - Complaint Outcomes: Resolved + Assistance Provided

as % of Number Completed

	1996	1997	1998
DSCFA	29%	43%	57%
Agriculture	26%	28%	29%
Revenue	40%	39%	27%

From the 1999 Report onwards, aggregation of the Resolved and Partially Resolved categories, each of which embraces the notion of a complaint being upheld or partially upheld, will, I hope, help to give a better picture of the number of cases completed which involve some element of maladministration.

Table 4 - Provisional 1999 statistics (to end November 1999)

	Completed	Resolved	Partially Resolved	Assistance Provided
DSCFA	612	80 (13%)	31 (5%)	150 (25%)
Agriculture	202	27 (13%)	5 (2%)	40 (20%)
Revenue	109	15 (14%)	4 (4%)	33 (30%)
Total	923	122 (13%)	40 (4%)	223 (24%)

Table 4 shows that the Resolved and Partially Resolved complaint result categories are quite consistent across the 3 Departments.

Complaint Types

I will not engage in any statistical analysis on this topic, but I will give a few examples which illustrate some of the current failings in customer service. May I say, however, that my staff are available if any of the organisations present here today wants further information on the types of complaint we receive. I am very happy to receive feedback on my Annual Report and if further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact my Office. If necessary, I will ensure that our information systems are modified in order to provide you with more useful information.

Example 1 - The necessity for complaints systems A good internal complaints system provides essential feedback from the public on the services provided by the organisation by indicating where problems may exist in the provision of services. It can also act as a means through which the public can tell the organisation how well it is, or is not, succeeding in its efforts to provide an improved quality service. Other benefits of a complaints system are outlined in my Guide to Internal Complaints Systems. A detailed check list based on experience about cases might be a useful tool for offices dealing with complainants.

One complaint against the Revenue Commissioners concerned their failure to investigate a complaint of alleged breach of confidentiality by a Revenue official in a public house. The response of the Revenue Commissioners to the complainant�s solicitor was "The Revenue Commissioners have no comment to make on the matter." The Revenue Commissioners were then asked for a copy their Investigation report on the complaint. On this occasion their response was: " The Revenue Commissioners did not conduct an investigation "

I took the view that the Revenue Commissioners� treatment of the complaint was not in keeping with good administrative practice particularly in view of the commitment in the Revenue Commissioners� Charter of Rights to foster the highest degree of public confidence in their integrity, efficiency and fairness. I would have to say that I find some disparity between the commitment that the Public Service undoubtedly has to openness, transparency and accountability at the macro level and the commitment at the level of individual cases, especially cases which may prove embarrassing or give rise to litigation. I must also acknowledge that the alleged incident took place in 1994 and that I have been assured by Revenue that such a complaint, if made today, would be handled very differently.

For an organisation to get any benefits from complaints systems they need adequate resources. A system which is perceived as merely rubber-stamping the organisation�s decision will not retain the confidence of the client.

To illustrate this point, in a recent complaint against the Department of Agriculture a farmer with a very good record claimed that an application had been submitted for a cattle livestock grant. There was no record of its receipt within the Department and despite having been appealed locally and to the Headage and Premia Appeals Unit, the decision was upheld not to pay the grant as no application had been received.

My Office made enquiries of the various sections within the Department with which the complainant would have been in contact in the normal course and it was discovered that the application had in fact been received with other documents relating to something else but had been misfiled. The application was then processed for payment. While the matter was resolved it could have been sorted out a lot earlier if a more positive approach to the handling of complaints had been adopted by the Department's Appeals Unit.

Example 2 - Charters and Targets for Standards of Service A number of complaints were received from farmers who had submitted applications for schemes to the Department based on incorrect information supplied or approved by officials from Teagasc. I put it to the Department that the farmers should get the benefit of the doubt because they acted on official advice and that one of the objectives of the Department's Charter of Rights for Farmers was a commitment to ensure that farmers are provided with the fullest information on their entitlements via their agencies. The response from the Department was that the Charter did not have legal status and was not binding on the Department in a contractual sense.

I have no evidence to suggest that the Department are not taking their Quality Customer Service Action Plan seriously and I am impressed by the level of detail in the performance indicators published recently. I note, however, that only 45% of Rural Environmental Protection Scheme payments were made within the two month target in 1998 and I can also confirm a rise in complaints about REPS to my Office.

Example 3 - Provision of Information There are continuing difficulties in the provision of information; the practice of issuing standard and basically irrelevant replies to complainants who raise sometimes difficult issues continues. A complaint about entitlement to Deserted Wife's Benefit was not adequately addressed by DSCFA when the complainant approached the Department in 1997; the involvement of Coolock Law Centre in the matter again produced no coherent response. In November 1998 the Law Centre complained to me about the matter and it took a further 5 months for the Department to address the issue at stake which essentially was how DWB claimants disqualified from benefit due to absence from the State should be treated. The replies given to the complainant initially and to the Law Centre simply did not address the points raised.

The local authority service must also embrace the concept of openness and transparency in the way in which it deals with the public. Providing information to the public which will allow them to understand the basis on which this service is, or in some cases, not provided is vital. Experience has shown that when information was readily provided to the public through the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations by local authorities complaints to my Office concerning this area dwindled considerably. I would like to see a similar openness in relation to the way in which decisions concerning the allocation of resources for the other important services provided by the local authority service such as housing, roads and the provision of water are handled.

Where there is an awareness and understanding of the basis on which a decision has been made there is a much greater likelihood that this decision will inspire confidence in the process by which it has been made.

In an investigation report published last year, I criticised the Department of Education and Science for their handling of an application for school transport for a child with disabilities. A central recommendation in that report was that the Department should devise and publish a transport scheme for such children so that people could at least be made aware of the scheme.

Example 4 - Dealing sensitively with people In my 1996 Annual Report, I said that dealing properly with people meant dealing with them sensitively by having regard to their age, to any disability they may have and to their feelings, privacy and convenience.

This year I have received a number of complaints from relatives of deceased hospital patients about the treatment afforded to them and their loved ones in the period before and after the death of the relative. I am still examining some of those complaints and, in at least one case, I have started a formal investigation of the complaint.

The period immediately after the loss of a loved one can be very traumatic for the surviving relative. They may still be grieving and have difficulty in coming to terms with the death. In such situations they may want to blame someone for the death. The perception of an unduly defensive attitude from the hospital or health board management only serves to exacerbate the situation.

Difficult as it may be, front line staff, both doctors and nurses, must try to find time, before and after the death, to talk to relatives and explain fully the patients condition and the management of that condition. This may save considerable time later in answering questions and preparing reports which might otherwise have been avoided. A responsive ear early in a complaint may, indeed, avoid litigation later.

Once a complaint is made, it must be dealt with promptly and sympathetically. In one case I dealt with, it took 18 months to arrange a meeting between the complainant and the hospital administrator and 21 months had passed before the nurses involved in the case were interviewed. This simply is not good enough. I am glad to say that the procedures have been changed in this area and a proper complaints system is now in place.

Another recurring theme is that all of the questions raised by the complainant have not been answered in the letter of reply. Complainants find this very frustrating and immediately suspect a cover-up when in fact this may not be the case at all. An explanation which might have been acceptable, had it been given the first time around, is then viewed with suspicion.

In two cases the family had received an appointment for the deceased relative some months after the death. It is hardly the case that they are the only ones to occur country wide. I urge all hospitals to review their procedures to ensure that the possibility of this happening is reduced to the absolute minimum. Where shortcomings are identified and acknowledged, complainants are often happy to learn that changes in procedures have been introduced and that no one else may be affected in the same way as they were.

Example 5 - Provision of redress An important element of quality customer service is the provision of redress. In my experience, some Departments are more willing than others to provide a remedy when a complaint is shown to be justified; a good example is the area of compensation for delayed or withheld payments. For the last 13 years, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has operated a scheme to pay compensation to clients who are at a disadvantage because they were late claiming an entitlement. The Department will pay compensation for loss of purchasing power in cases where the Department was solely or significantly to blame for the delay, and this can arise where, for example, a person was given wrong information by the Department when they enquired about their entitlements. The Department is now in the process of putting this scheme into a legislative format. The Department of Education and Science has also paid such compensation.

When I came across a similar case of benefit delay in the Eastern Health Board in 1998, I put it to them that they should adopt a scheme similar to that of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The Board agreed to pay compensation in the particular case and also agreed to have the introduction of a compensation scheme considered at national level by all 8 health boards. Agreement from all boards followed very shortly and a national scheme was drawn up and approved by all the CEOs early this year. They are currently awaiting final sanction from the Department of Finance to implement it. The Boards placed the scheme squarely in the context of another step towards improving the quality of their services. By way of contrast, the Revenue Commissioners refuse to award compensation for loss of value of income tax wrongly or incorrectly deducted on the grounds that they lack the statutory authority to do so. I have begun a formal investigation of 8 complaints against Revenue concerning this issue.

Conclusion

Finally, may I thank you once again for the opportunity to address you today. I would my like to repeat that my staff are available if your group or indeed individual Departments or organisations would like further information on our work or on my views on the QCS initiative.