The Committee received the Local Government Ombudsman’s Annual review of cases for the year ending 31 March 2023.

Members noted receipt of the Ombudsman’s letter to the authority.  Officers highlighted a change in approach by the Ombudsman who were now more selective in what they investigated, prioritising cases considered to be in the public interest.  As a result, more complaints had been upheld across the public sector.

The Ombudsman stated that a compliance rate of less then 100% was a concern.  Therefore, Officers were pleased to report that Runnymede had no recommendations that were due for compliance in the reporting period.

Officers confirmed that the Council’s rate of providing a satisfactory remedy was 67% (2 out of 3).  The way this was judged was a matter of timing.  Members noted that this meant the authority had remedied the complaint but only after the Ombudsman became involved.

The Committee was asked to note a consultation had just opened on a joint code of complaint handling with the Housing Ombudsman.  Officers advised that the closing date for responses was 23 November 2023. Therefore, a response would be drafted for the Committee’s approval at its next meeting in November.

Officers reported that the Ombudsman had received 9 referrals for this Council and issued 10 decisions in the year ending 31 March 2023.  Members noted that the three cases which the Ombudsman investigated in detail were all upheld and that two were remedied before reaching the Ombudsman.

Officers confirmed that the facts of the third case concerning Housing were a matter of public record with personal details redacted and available on the Ombudsman’s website.  Members recalled that as a result of the case the Council updated its Home Assistance Policy and created a tenure neutral service which was approved by both the Housing and Community Services Committees.  This was now implemented and relevant staff trained accordingly.  Members were content that the Ombudsman was satisfied with the actions taken to remedy the complaint.

Members examined some examples of decisions made about other local authorities from which lessons could be learned and service improvements made.  In respect of one of these examples, Officers in Environmental Services were asked to provide the Committee with details of the Council’s policy and procedures for dealing with noise complaints and to confirm whether it included the provision to advise residents in writing to tell them the outcome of an investigation into noise nuisance and their option to pursue private action under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Officers confirmed that as with cases elsewhere, delays did play a part in some complaints raised with the Ombudsman.  Members agreed there was a balance to be struck between responding within the Council’s policy parameters and managing expectation, especially in cases which were complex and where resources were limited.

Officers were also asked to highlight the ‘lessons learned’ examples to the Council’s Senior Leadership Team.

Members reviewed comparative data with other authorities in Surrey, noting that the County Council’s figures were higher than other authorities because their remit included Adult Social Care and Education.

Officers confirmed that reporting on cases in this way fulfilled the Council’s legal obligations under section 5(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to report Ombudsman decisions.

Officers were thanked for their report which was duly noted.