Customer Services
 |
Source: BFI inspection assessment
For an explanation about how to read this radar chart see Strategic Management.
3.1 Customer service is important. Local authorities should aim to:
- deliver modern, efficient, secure customer focused public services and empower individuals to influence them
- reduce barriers to work, particularly in relation to benefit and rent policy
- support vulnerable people and tackle all forms of social exclusion, including bad housing, homelessness, poverty, crime and poor health.
3.2 In its self-assessment for Customer Services, London Borough of Hackney scored itself at above Standard for 4 elements, at Standard for one and below Standard for the remaining 4. However, our assessment was that London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard for any of the elements but was close to Standard in relation to dealing with requests for reconsiderations and appeals.
Clear, simple, accessible claim forms
3.3 Clear HB and CTB claim forms can help reduce the need for requests for further information from the customer. They can also reduce the risk of customer confusion, error and fraud. Clear advice at the time of the claim can reinforce messages about the need to provide evidence of identity and income, and resolve concerns of those with limited documentation.
3.4 London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard because its claim form was not in line with BFI’s model claim form.
3.5 London Borough of Hackney used one claim form for all claims and an analysis of it can be found in Appendix B. The authority intended to redesign its claim form in line with BFI’s model later in 2003.
3.6 Claim forms were available at Neighbourhood Housing Offices, at the Town Hall and through the council’s website. Forms were also supplied to Registered Social Landlords.
3.7 In March 2003 London Borough of Hackney’s website advised that forms were available at First Stop shops and libraries, but the First Stop shops closed in February 2003, and the staff at the central library, next to the Town Hall, told us that they did not stock them.
3.8 London Borough of Hackney told us that local Citizens Advice Bureau offices also held forms, but we visited the Mare Street office and were advised that it did not keep supplies.
3.9 Our first report recommended that London Borough of Hackney redesign its claim form in line with BFI’s model claim form. As a new BFI model claim was released in September 2002 London Borough of Hackney’s claim form required updating.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
Timely, helpful response to public enquiries
3.10 This section is concerned with quantitative measures such as opening hours and speed of response, and the quality of service that is provided.
3.11 London Borough of Hackney was close to Standard for this element. We found:
- staff in the call centre at Keltan House were able to deal with all but the most complicated calls
- a good spread of access points across the borough was provided by the main benefit enquiry counter at Keltan House and the 6 Neighbourhood Housing Offices
- interviewing facilities at Keltan House were comprehensive and included 4 private interview rooms, although their availability was not advertised.
3.12 For London Borough of Hackney to meet the Standard it should:
- adopt and achieve a telephone call answering target of 80% within 15 seconds
- adopt and achieve a target for seeing 80% of customers within 15 minutes of calling into enquiry offices without an appointment
- advertise the availability of private interview rooms
- provide training to staff at Neighbourhood Housing Offices on how to obtain relevant information from the Benefits IT system
- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
- introduce and monitor targets for dealing with correspondence as a discrete item.
Telephone service
3.13 The Benefits service call centre was located at Keltan House, had 19 lines and was open from 09.00 – 17.00 Monday to Friday. Staff were trained to deal with the majority of benefit calls. More complex calls that involved Support Services functions, such as intricate overpayment queries, or Council Tax were passed over to the relevant team to action. For particularly complex benefit enquiry calls that required the intervention of a benefit officer, call centre staff took a message and advised the customer that a benefit assessor would contact them within 5 days.
3.14 London Borough of Hackney installed a new telephone system in February 2003 and during the on-site phase of our inspection was still coming to terms with the reports and management information that could be obtained from it. No management information was available for performance in this area before the new system was installed.
3.15 The main reports included:
- number of lost calls
- number of abandoned calls
- longest waiting unanswered call
- average call time
- availability of each staff member.
3.16 These reports could be obtained immediately, daily and weekly, giving the Call Centre Team Leader a good range of information to enable the service levels to be monitored.
3.17 London Borough of Hackney had a target of 90% of calls to be answered within 30 seconds. This was below Standards target of 80% of calls to be answered within 15 seconds.
3.18 During the first 5 weeks of operating the new system the following levels of performance were recorded:
Week commencing |
% of calls answered within 30 seconds |
|---|---|
3 February 2003 |
36 |
10 February 2003 |
30 |
17 February 2003 |
23 |
24 February 2003 |
62 |
3 March 2003 |
69 |
Source: London Borough of Hackney
3.19 Figure 3.2 shows that, in spite of rising levels of performance, London Borough of Hackney was still not meeting its own target of 90% of calls being answered within 30 seconds.
3.20 The team leader and 2 senior officers had access to the management information and were able to make decisions regarding the number of call centre staff needed to meet demand. This facility was accessed regularly during the day and adjustments made to the number of staff available.
3.21 There was no facility for overflow calls to be answered when all the call centre lines were being used, therefore the calls were lost. We were told that it was the council’s intention to link all 7 of its call centres to enable the calls to be re-routed when demand exceeded supply but there was no firm date for this to be completed. There was also no indication of what training would be provided to call centre staff who had not dealt with benefit enquiries before.
3.22 From discussions during our visit we discovered a potential problem with the recording of the number of customers abandoning calls. The numbers had fallen from hundreds a day to just a few dozen. This could have been because the call centre was much more efficient with its new system, but it could also be due to a software fault. London Borough of Hackney was aware of this potential issue and was in contact with the suppliers of the system seeking to resolve it.
3.23 Despite the fact that London Borough of Hackney was failing to hit its own or the Standard targets, it was evident from discussions with Neighbourhood Housing Offices, housing associations and other third parties, that the telephone service had improved greatly over the first few months of 2003.
3.24 Call centre staff told us that locating the correct document on the Hackney interim document system was a problem, as all documents were given generic names rather than specific ones. This meant that customers were kept waiting on the phone while the operator searched for the right piece of information.
3.25 We commented in our last report on the lack of use of all available telephone lines and recommended that this be reviewed to improve the service provided. The percentage of calls being answered at that time was estimated to be 18%. The new call centre offered an improved service with 69% of calls being answered within 30 seconds at the beginning of March 2003.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
· adopts and achieves a telephone answering target of 80% of all calls to be answered within 15 seconds. |
Customer reception points – Keltan House
3.26 Keltan House was open 09.00 – 17.00 Monday to Friday, providing a 40 hour per week service to customers. The Enquiries team had 18 staff plus a team leader.
3.27 A ticket-based queue management system was operated. This printed the time of arrival on the ticket and gave the customer an indication of the length of the wait they could expect.
3.28 Figure 3.3 shows the number of callers at Keltan House over a 4 month period, the average waiting time and time spent with the customer by a staff member.
|
Nov 2002 |
Dec 2002 |
Jan 2003 |
Feb 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of callers |
10,715 |
7,764 |
10,802 |
9,979 |
Average waiting time (minutes) |
26 |
19 |
16 |
19 |
Average time spent with each caller (minutes) |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
Total time (minutes) |
31 |
23 |
21 |
23 |
Source: London Borough of Hackney
3.29 Figure 3.4 shows the percentage of callers seen within 30 minutes. At the time of our previous inspection callers faced waiting times of up to 349 minutes.
Nov 2002 |
Dec 2002 |
Jan 2003 |
Feb 2003 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of callers seen within 30 minutes |
69 |
78 |
76 |
73 |
||
|
|
|
|
|||
Source: London Borough of Hackney
3.30 To achieve Standard for this element an authority needs to ensure 80% of customers calling at HB/CTB offices, without an appointment, are seen within 15 minutes of their arrival. London Borough of Hackney was falling short of this target.
3.31 Customers with pre-booked appointments reported to the reception desk staff, who advised the Enquiries team of their arrival. There was no monitoring system to ensure that these customers were seen within 15 minutes, but from discussion and observation during our visit, they were seen almost immediately.
3.32 There was a strict policy of only agreeing to appointment requests from customers where they were deemed to be vulnerable, (elderly, disabled or subject to domestic violence), which was followed by both the call centre and enquiries staff. There was guidance indicating that appointments should be limited in terms of numbers to 4 a day, 2 at 10.30 and 2 at 15.30. However, we were told that this could be changed if urgent appointments were required.
3.33 All new claimants were taken into an interview room and given help to complete the claim form.
3.34 The availability of interview rooms at Keltan House was not advertised. Shortly after our visit we were told that their availability was to be advertised in Hackney today during May 2003.
3.35 The supply of leaflets at Keltan House was extensive. Systems were in place to ensure that they were checked weekly by a nominated staff member, with quarterly checks undertaken and documented by the Enquiries Team Leader.
3.36 We noticed that some of the leaflets in ethnic languages were out of date and quoted incorrect applicable amounts. These leaflets were removed as soon as we pointed this out and replacement leaflets ordered.
3.37 The benefits IT system could be accessed from all the counter positions allowing staff to answer customer queries immediately.
3.38 A separate fast-track reception area for receiving claim forms and verifying key documents was operated at Keltan House. This was open for the same hours as the main counter. Customers were issued with receipts and a note of any further documentation required in support of their claim.
3.39 We commented on the staffing numbers and service levels in our last report and recommended that sufficient staff be available to meet demand. We were pleased to note the improvement in the level of service offered.
Customer reception points – Neighbourhood Housing Offices
3.40 We visited Clapton and Kingsland Neighbourhood Housing Offices. Both offices had private interview facilities, but did not advertise their availability.
3.41 These offices used ticket-based queuing systems, but no analysis of waiting times was undertaken. Both offices had full and comprehensive supplies of benefit leaflets.
3.42 Each Neighbourhood Housing Office had access to the Benefits IT system on a read-only basis. However, staff were not trained in use of the system and access was restricted because the terminals were located away from the reception areas. There was no access to the Hackney Interim Document System.
3.43 As Neighbourhood Housing Office staff had no access to the Hackney Interim Document System or the necessary training to use the Benefits IT system, they had to telephone call centre officers at Keltan House to obtain the required information. Neighbourhood Housing Office staff told us that in the past it had been difficult to get through to Keltan House but access had improved greatly since the installation of a new telephone system in February 2003.
3.44 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Dealing with correspondence
3.45 London Borough of Hackney did not monitor general correspondence separately, but dealt with it as part of the changes of circumstances workload. This meant that it was unable to monitor whether it was replying to 80% within 14 days.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
Customer surveys
3.46 London Borough of Hackney had undertaken a series of customer surveys to establish the needs and opinions of its customers. These had covered customers’ experiences in dealing with the Customer Service and Benefits sections and were completed in April and November 2001. The results were used to plan improvements to the service, culminating in the introduction of the new telephone system in February 2003.
3.47 The next survey was due to be sent out with 2003/04 Council Tax bills.
Effective training and development for customer service
3.48 It is important that staff should be equipped to deliver good customer service. Training and development should be provided that will:
- allow staff to respond to enquiries, ensuring that the service is right first time
- ensure continuing high standards of customer service.
3.49 We found London Borough of Hackney was very close to Standard for this element. The only area that needed attention was the training of the Neighbourhood Housing Office staff who dealt with benefit enquiries. Their managers received copies of circulars and the Landlord Liaison team sent summaries of relevant changes. However staff told us that this was a very recent development, and that they had no training or team discussions on benefit changes, the circulars were simply forwarded to them to read. They also needed training on how to use the Benefits IT system as referred to earlier in this section.
3.50 There were 18 temporary staff working in the call centre and Enquiries teams, 14 of whom had been appointed as permanent employees following the recruitment fair referred to in the Strategic Management section. The intention was for the new permanent staff to undertake the 14-week training programme that had been developed, starting in April 2003.
3.51 Staff had specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based targets and personal development plans had been agreed with all customer service staff as part of the new appraisal process. The intention was that these would feed into the overall training plans although, because it was such a recent development, we saw no evidence of this.
3.52 Staff on the Enquiries and HB Visiting teams felt that although they had received technical training, they would benefit from customer service and health and safety training to enable them to offer a better service.
3.53 Staff felt that they were empowered to make decisions and did not have to refer to management for all matters. They also felt comfortable with making these decisions.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
Clear, informative decision letters
3.54 Letters to customers and other affected persons need to inform them clearly about the decisions made, and explain the decision clearly enough for them to decide whether they might have grounds for appeal.
3.55 London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard for this element because its decision letters:
- made no reference to the need for claimants and landlords to report changes of circumstances
- reasons for overpayments arising were not accurately reflected on decision letters. This is covered in more detail in the Overpayments section of this report.
3.56 An insert listing the most common changes of circumstances was issued with the decision letter but the letter made no reference to the insert. Therefore it was not made clear to claimants that the insert formed part of the notification. Schedule 6 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 requires that the kind of changes of circumstances to be notified must be sent to the landlord and claimant as an integral part of the decision notice when the landlord is receiving direct payments. Therefore in these cases the use of an insert does not meet the requirements of the regulations.
3.57 During our last inspection we recommended that the decision letters be amended to inform claimants of their responsibility to inform the council of any changes of circumstances which may affect their benefit entitlement, and give examples. This had not been resolved. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
3.58 Weaknesses in the completion of the reasons for overpayments arising on the decision letters are covered in the section on Overpayments.
3.59 We provide an analysis of London Borough of Hackney’s decision notices at Appendix C.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
Accessible, quality service for claimants with specific needs
3.60 It is important that eligible claimants are not deterred from claiming because the Benefits service does not address their specific needs.
3.61 Services need to be accessible to people with disabilities, people whose first language is not English, people with communication or learning difficulties and other people who are vulnerable because of their age or physical or mental health problems.
3.62 We found London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard for this element because:
- no assessment of the needs of its ethnic population had been undertaken
- the full range of aids was not available for those customers with special needs
- translation facilities were not always available.
Claimants with disabilities
3.63 The following were provided to customers requiring assistance:
- letters on audio cassettes
- Braille letters and leaflets
- text phones for those with speech and hearing difficulties
- home visits to those considered to be vulnerable.
3.64 To achieve Standard London Borough of Hackney needs to offer:
- large print forms
- information on computer disc
- British sign language interpreters.
3.65 There was no nominated member of staff to carry out and report on the availability and working status of the facilities for those customers with special needs.
Accessibility
3.66 With its extensive rail and bus network London Borough of Hackney had good communication links between different parts of the borough and with other areas of London.
3.67 Keltan House was situated on the main road through Hackney and was well served by train and bus routes. Customers may also call at London Borough of Hackney’s 6 Neighbourhood Housing Offices, where the staff can answer queries and also accept forms and documents. These staff were hindered by a lack of knowledge on how to access the Benefits IT system. They also had no direct telephone line to the Benefits section. A daily courier service operated between Keltan House and the Neighbourhood Housing Offices to collect and deliver any documents.
3.68 Home visits were offered to those considered as vulnerable, such as the elderly, people with disabilities or those suffering from domestic abuse. There was a dedicated HB Visiting team and an appointment could be arranged within a few days.
3.69 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires public buildings to be accessible to all members of the public. London Borough of Hackney had not undertaken any surveys to determine the suitability and accessibility of its offices for people with disabilities.
Claimants whose first language is not English
3.70 London Borough of Hackney had not undertaken an assessment of the needs of its customers whose first language is not English. Leaflets were offered in the most common ethnic languages, but the claim form was only available in English. We were told that it was the intention to offer this in other languages later in 2003.
3.71 Due to the diverse make-up of its workforce, London Borough of Hackney often had a staff member who was able to act as an interpreter should the need arise. A list of staff fluent in a foreign language was maintained and readily available to their colleagues. From discussions with staff during our visit, we were told that it was not always possible to obtain the help of these staff, as they were busy on other duties. To overcome this the Benefits service was arranging to use the Language Line translation facility used in other parts of the council.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
|
|
Accessible, quality service for those in work
3.72 Working people may have limited opportunities to contact the local authority. It is important that authorities provide accessible quality services for those in work.
3.73 London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard for this element because it told us that:
- there had been no review to establish the needs of those in work
- information received from Jobcentre Plus was not used to fast-track claims of those who had started work.
3.74 London Borough of Hackney made good use of the certificate of earnings attached to its claim form. Standards state that a certificate of earnings should be used where appropriate. London Borough of Hackney’s certificate of earnings form was an integral part of its claim form and was used to help process claims more quickly.
- the certificate was only used where the claimant was unable to supply payslips or evidence of salary
- only certificates that were stamped, signed and returned by the employer were accepted for verifying income.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
Encouraging benefit take-up, reducing poverty
3.76 Local Authority Benefit staff have a role in encouraging take-up of other benefits. This work may be most effective as part of a wider anti-poverty strategy.
3.77 London Borough of Hackney had undertaken the following work:
- take-up campaigns with the Neighbourhood Housing Offices. These were aimed at the elderly, disabled and lone parent families
- Neighbourhood Housing Office staff gave a pack containing information on HB and CTB to all new council tenants
- enclosed leaflets on HB and CTB with Council Tax bills
- displayed posters to encourage tenants on low incomes to claim HB and CTB.
3.78 It did not achieve Standard for this element because no joint work had been undertaken with Jobcentre Plus or any representative groups.
Working with third parties
3.79 London Borough
of Hackney had worked closely with its own Housing Directorate to
identify under-claiming groups, and had targeted these people to
encourage take-up. At the time of our inspection this work had
concentrated on the elderly, disabled and lone parents from certain
geographical areas of the borough. A distinctively coloured
application form was used to monitor the numbers returned and judge
the success of the campaign. This analysis was in its early stages and
no conclusions had been drawn at the time we were
on-site.
3.80 Each Neighbourhood Housing Office had an Income Maximisation Officer whose role was to ensure that customers were claiming their full benefit entitlement. There were no specific targets for these staff in relation to HB and CTB take-up.
3.81 No work had been undertaken with any external group representing people with specific needs such as Help the Aged or Citizens Advice Bureau.
Promoting take-up
3.82 The Neighbourhood Housing Offices issued all new council tenants with leaflets explaining HB and CTB and how to apply for benefit.
3.83 In addition to the leaflets enclosed with Council Tax bills, the back of the bill included notes to encourage those who may be eligible for benefit to contact the Revenues and Benefits Division.
3.84 No assistance or guidance was offered to working age claimants who were considering starting work, to ensure that they were aware that they may still be eligible to claim HB.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
Addressing complaints about the service effectively
3.85 It is important complaints are dealt with promptly, and the complainant is given an explanation, information, an apology and rectification if appropriate.
3.86 London Borough of Hackney failed to achieve this Standard because it did not undertake any analysis of the types of complaints received.
3.87 Our last report recommended that London Borough of Hackney analyse complaints to identify any weaknesses. This was not being done.
3.88 Targets for response times to complaints were documented and were available on London Borough of Hackney’s website. They were:
- acknowledgement to be issued within 3 working days
- full response to be issued within 10 working days
- if the investigation will take longer than 10 days, then a further letter be issued giving a deadline for a full response.
3.89 The Finance Directorate was due to adopt a new complaints IT system in April 2003. The system was in use in other parts of the authority and allowed for comprehensive analysis of data to supply meaningful management information. London Borough of Hackney also proposed that the deadlines for dealing with complaints be amended to:
- acknowledgement to be issued within 3 working days
- for initial complaints to the local manager a response by the local manager to be issued within 15 working days
- where complaints were not resolved by the local manager a response by the Assistant Director to be issued within 15 working days
- where complaints remained unresolved after the intervention of the Assistant Director a response by the Standards and Complaints team of the Law and Probity Directorate to be issued within 20 working days.
3.90 From our sample of 10 complaints recorded as received between August 2002 and February 2003, we found that the current targets were being achieved, with all cases receiving a full response within 10 working days.
3.91 Our sample included 2 cases where a query had been received and recorded on the Hackney interim document system to be answered. These had not been dealt with because of the arrears of work and a further letter was received within a few weeks. This also failed to prompt a response and a formal complaint was lodged. Once recorded as a complaint the Complaints and Appeals team resolved the issues and issued a full reply within a week. The Complaints and Appeals team told us this situation happened between 5 and 10 times every fortnight. Dealing with complaints and appeals was normally the role of all staff in the Benefits section. However a Complaints and Appeals team had been temporarily created to clear a backlog of this work.
3.92 There was a form and guidance notes issued to customers on how to complain, however, there were 2 versions in use during our visit. This could cause confusion, as one version referred to the proposed new response targets, and the other to the existing ones. Staff were unsure which targets were current, and which forms to issue.
3.93 Anyone making a verbal complaint was advised that complaints could only be accepted in writing. Staff believed that this was because complaints without a signature would not be accepted. This could cause unnecessary delays and mean that some complaints are lost, as not all customers will be prepared to follow the matter up in writing.
3.94 London Borough of Hackney did not use complaints to improve its service or inform training needs. It was aware of the need to do this and believed that this would be overcome with the introduction of the new complaints IT system, which would make the required analysis easier.
3.95 Our first report recommended that action be taken to improve the complaints service as at that time it was taking an average of 72 days to deal with a complaint. London Borough of Hackney did not have any management information to show how quickly complaints were cleared. However, our sampling showed that the speed of response had been improved to less than 10 working days.
3.96 Figure 3.5 shows the number of complaints received each year from 2000/01. No further breakdown was possible as the complaints IT system in use at the time of our on-site inspection did not allow detailed analysis. However the numbers of complaints had significantly reduced each year.
| Year | Total number of complaints |
|---|---|
2000/01 |
2,243 |
2001/02 |
1,648 |
2002/03 as at February 2003 |
862 |
Source: London Borough of Hackney
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
|
|
Dealing with requests for reconsiderations and appeal referrals effectively
3.97 Local authorities need to ensure that:
- disputes are resolved as quickly as possible
- management information is used to inform the effectiveness of the local authority’s handling of disputes and claims
- analysis is undertaken to ensure that any wider or common failures indicated are addressed.
3.98 London Borough of Hackney was not at Standard for this element but was strong in the following areas:
- spreadsheets to assist in managing the progress of requests for reconsideration and appeals
- 5 staff experienced in presentation at tribunal hearings
- decision notices advised customers of their rights of appeal
- checks to ensure that appeals are correct in law before submission
- decisions made by the appeals tribunal were implemented quickly.
3.99 To be at Standard London Borough of Hackney needs to clear the backlog of appeals and implement the guidance issued by the Appeals Service in Communications Bulletin 6. The temporary Complaints and Appeals team did not recall receiving this circular and we supplied a copy to them during our visit.
3.100 An experienced officer checked all submissions before they were sent to the Appeals Service to ensure they were correct in format and points of law.
3.101 From analysis of the spreadsheets used to track requests for reconsideration and appeals we found that:
- reconsiderations took an average of 57 days to respond to
- appeals took an average of 148 days to respond to.
3.102 In March 2003 there was a backlog of 175 reconsiderations and appeals dating back to October 2002. London Borough of Hackney had recently set a target to provide a response to all new appeals and requests for reconsideration within 28 days of receipt. A separate team had temporarily been established to action the backlog so that new appeals and requests for reconsideration could be dealt with inside the 28-day target.
3.103 Since July 2001 only 4 of London Borough of Hackney’s decisions had not been upheld on appeal, and from our sampling it was evident that the appeal tribunal decisions were implemented quickly. The 2 we looked at showed that London Borough of Hackney had amended the claim within 8 days of the tribunal’s decision.
3.104 We commented on delays in processing requests for reviews (now requests for reconsideration and appeals) in our first inspection and made recommendations to reduce the backlog. By the time of this inspection the situation had improved but there was still a serious backlog.
We recommend that London Borough of Hackney: |
|---|
|
|
|