Customer Services

Fig. 3.1: Results of BFI’s assessment for Customer Services

Source: BFI analysis
For an explanation about how to read this radar chart see Executive summary

3.1 Customer service is important. Local authorities should aim to:

· deliver modern, efficient and 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 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided a self-assessment against Performance Standards which reported it was at Standard in one of the 9 Customer Services elements, Addressing complaints about the service effectively.

3.3 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in any of the Customer Services’ elements.

3.4 We assessed the performance of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham against the Customer Services functional area in a variety of ways. We examined key documents, such as claim forms and various types of decision letters. We examined London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's published plans and strategies. We interviewed managers and staff and we observed the operation of the Customer Services reception. We also analysed a sample of requests for reconsideration and appeals and referred to other samples undertaken as part of the inspection.

Clear, simple, accessible claim forms

3.5 Clear HB and CTB claim forms can help reduce the need for requests for further information from the customer. They provide information on the types of evidence that is required, and 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.

3.6 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· sufficient measures were not in place to manage the regular supply of
up-to-date HB and CTB claim forms to all council enquiry points, local housing offices and registered social landlords

· it did not use a combined HB and CTB claim form that covered different types of claim, for example, new, renewal, IS or JSA(IB) and non-IS or JSA(IB)

· the HB and CTB claim forms in use did not conform to the Department’s model claim form.

3.7 Supplies of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s HB and CTB claim forms were distributed from 90 Stour Road, the main designated HB and CTB office. However, we could find no evidence of a written procedure for managing the monitoring and supply of up-to-date claim forms to its 4 other designated offices.

3.8 At the time of our on-site visit London Borough of Barking and Dagenham used the following claim forms:

· HB and CTB new claims

· HB and CTB renewal claims

– one for those in receipt of IS or JSA(IB)

– one for those not in receipt of IS or JSA(IB)

· second adult rebate claims.

3.9 We found second adult rebate claim forms that referred to an out-of-date telephone number. Obsolete HB and CTB claim forms were discovered in case samples selected when establishing performance on processing new claims. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that this was to run down existing stationery stocks and that following the on-site phase of our inspection they had been destroyed.

3.10 In addition to the claim forms London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had supplementary forms to be sent in appropriate circumstances. For example:

· certificate of earned income

· HB and CTB self-employed earnings information

· rent referral details

· details to confirm identity of customer and any partner.

3.11 However, there was no checklist to ensure that these forms were sent in every appropriate case.

3.12 Adult literacy in the borough was low and recognised by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham as a contributory factor to customer difficulties when completing claim forms. In our sample of 30 new claims we found 6 claims where the claim form had not been completed in full. The claim form in use did not clearly prompt the customer to fill in all of the relevant parts of the form.

3.13 The lack of clear, well designed claim forms, absence of any clear guidance notes and lack of information about frequently asked questions led to a high level of defective claim forms and a correspondingly high number of customer enquiry calls at the Customer Services reception. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not gather this information and therefore was unable to quantify the number of queries raised by customers specifically as a result of poor wording on claim forms.

3.14 In Appendix C we detail our analysis of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s HB and CTB claim form used for new claims. We also refer to this claim form in relation to landlords in Working with Landlords.

3.15 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it was aware of the shortfalls of its claim forms but was unable to tell us when they would be revised. The problem had been referred to in the Rents and Benefits Team Plan for 2002/03, but had not been taken further. In January 2004 we were told that a working party had been set up to review the claim forms using the Department's model form as a template.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· ensures sufficient measures are in place to manage the regular supply of current HB and CTB claim forms to all council enquiry points, local housing offices and registered social landlords · introduces a combined HB and CTB claim form that conforms to the Department's model form and covers different types of claim, for example, new, renewal, IS or JSA(IB) and non-IS or JSA(IB).

Timely, helpful response to public enquiries

3.16 This section is concerned with quantitative measures, such as opening hours and speed of response, and the quality of service that is provided.

3.17 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· monitor any periods when the telephone system was unavailable

· monitor the Customer Services enquiry telephone line failure rate

· inform the public clearly that private interviews were available

· rigorously monitor performance on all forms of customer enquiry

· monitor performance against the target for dealing with correspondence.

Telephone enquiries

3.18 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham operated a Benefits service Call Centre customer enquiry line. The Call Centre was adjacent to the Customer Services reception and was managed by the Customer Services manager.

3.19 The line, from which 4 extensions operated, was open 08.30 – 16.15, Monday to Friday, outside public holidays. The correct telephone number to contact this Call Centre appeared on the majority of HB and CTB information available to the public, including London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s website and most HB and CTB claims forms. It was missing or incorrect on the second adult rebate and certificate of earned income forms.

3.20 The correct telephone number appeared on decision letters, however, a title or an explanation as to the purpose of this number did not accompany it.

3.21 The Call Centre was operated by a team who had access to the benefits IT system and were trained to respond to a wide range of claims enquiries, including detailed enquiries on the progress of individual cases.

3.22 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not maintain records of periods when the telephone system was not working.

3.23 The Call Centre did not support a telephone queue management system. Call Centre staff or the engaged tone greeted customers telephoning the correct number.

3.24 Manual records of the number and category of calls answered were maintained by Call Centre staff and subsequently collated for statistical purposes by their manager. This information was reliant on accurate manual logging of calls by staff. The data was subsequently used to provide reports to senior managers within the Benefits service. We saw no evidence that his information was used to:

· drive improvements in the service

· provide feedback to staff or customers.

3.25 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham reported that it had manually logged 1,807 telephone calls received by the Call Centre during December 2003. We were told that, despite this being a holiday period, the number of calls received was within the normal range of monthly call volumes. This represents approximately 11 calls received, per hour, by the Call Centre.

3.26 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Customer Care Standards leaflet, available to the public, contained a target to respond to telephone enquiries within 20 seconds or 7 rings. This is within the Standards target of 80% of calls to be answered within 30 seconds. The Revenues Services' Customer Charter on London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s website, contradicts this performance target, giving a response time within 10 rings. However, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not have a system in place to measure whether calls were answered within either target time. Therefore London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was unable to report whether or not it had reached target.

3.27 While we were on site, information was received, from the council’s Information Management and Technology Division, which indicated approximately 54% of incoming calls failed to be put through to the Call Centre as the line open to the public was engaged. This was the first time this information had been requested and we were told work would be undertaken to develop the format to provide useable data to check performance against the Customer Care target.

3.28 The Customer Services manager told us that he would pursue further information regarding telephone access, in a user-friendly format and that this would be used to support analysis and any subsequent improvement action. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it planned to install a new telephone system but at the time of our on-site inspection no date had been agreed.

3.29 We tested the effectiveness of the Call Centre telephone service over a 3-week period and found that of the 29 calls made 19 (66%) received the engaged tone. The calls were made at various times during the working day.

3.30 All 10 calls (34%) that were answered were done so within both London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s corporate and Revenues Services’ specific targets.

3.31 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham staff told us that the problem of a high occurrence of engaged lines was widely known. The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 included a target date of March 2004 to investigate methods to reduce telephone waiting times. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that the restructure of the Benefits service would increase the number of lines available from 4 to 6, with 9 available during peak periods.

3.32 Staff told us that instances of customers contacting other London Borough of Barking and Dagenham sections, such as Rent Accounts and Council Tax, to resolve HB and CTB queries were not uncommon. The sections contacted were not aware of any dedicated line that could be used for the Customer Services team and could not transfer calls as the lines were busy.

Customer Services reception

3.33 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s designated Customer Services reception for HB and CTB enquiries was open from 08.45 – 16.00 Monday to Friday. However, these times were contrary to customer information found on London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s website that stated 09.00 – 16.00.

3.34 The reception area offered the following facilities for customers:

· seating for approximately 40 customers – but no priority seating for elderly or the disabled

· a drinks and vending machine

· private interview rooms

· a television for customers to watch

· carousels, wallboards and posters displaying a range of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham general and benefits specific information.

3.35 Customer toilets were not provided at 90 Stour Road. However, they were available in the Housing and Health Department reception, in the adjacent building, at 2 Stour Road.

3.36 The reception area was clean and tidy. However, the accommodation, fixtures and fittings were dated. The reception area was cramped and very warm especially at busy times. There were no facilities to cater for customers with children. Access from the street was suitable for disabled customers but allowed little room for navigation around the reception area or movement to the counters and interview rooms. Privacy in the reception area was particularly poor. For example, we found that the customers being interviewed at the open counters could be heard from the other side of the seating area even when the reception was busy.

3.37 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that as part of the Customer First Best Value review a number of options had been identified to improve customer service. One was to upgrade the Customer Services reception area and use it as a combined facility for Revenues Services and the Housing and Health Department. The Scrutiny Management Board received a report on 26 November 2003 advising that this was still being considered and remained an option. In addition, the Customer First project team undertook a review of all the council's reception facilities in September 2003. A report of the findings from this review was put to senior managers in November 2003. As a result, an action plan to improve the reception facilities at 90 Stour Road was being developed with the aim of completing the improvements by the end of March 2004.

Queue management

3.38 The Customer Services reception operated an electronic ticket-based queue monitoring system. All customers were requested to take a ticket on arrival. The ticket detailed the time of arrival, clearly showed the customer’s sequential number and included the words First Contact. Posters explaining the queuing system were displayed both at the main door and throughout reception. The customer was advised to wait until called to the First Contact counter where they outlined the reason for their visit, this was then categorised so that they could be seen by an appropriate member of the Customer Services team.

3.39 Once assessed by First Contact the customer was told to wait until an appropriate person was available to see them. The queuing system was briefly explained to them again. Customers then waited until the number on their ticket appeared on the electronic display. They then went to the counter or interview room indicated on the electronic display.

3.40 Six queues were routinely in operation:

· new claims

· renewals

· document processing

· general enquiries

· council tenant rent accounts

· Council Tax.

3.41 In October 2003 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham published the Customer First - Business Plan. This document contained details of Customer Services performance. Figure 3.2 shows the breakdown of visits by customers to the Customer Services reception. The data is from London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s queue monitoring system.

Fig. 3.2: Customer visits to the Customer Services reception from January - June 2003
Category	Number of callers
First Contact	25,731
General enquiries	5,367
New claims	3,335
Renewals	2,081
Document processing	7,847
Council tenant rent accounts	2,631
Council Tax	3,570

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

3.42 The information in Figure 3.2 details the category of customers' visits from January - June 2003. It shows that not all customers dealt with by First Contact moved on to other category queues. We were told that this was because First Contact was able to deal with less complex enquiries and the receipt of documents. It was not possible to identify customers who fell into more than one category.

3.43 There were 6 enquiry counters, including First Contact, and 4 private interview rooms available. The private interview rooms were adjacent to the reception area. They were in continual use because they were used as an extension to the counter facilities. In addition, 2 rooms were used for specific purposes:

· one room with a frosted glass window was used for interviews under caution

· one room with a full protective screen was used for interviews with potentially violent persons.

3.44 The room used for interviews under caution was not fit for this purpose. There were high levels of background noise from the public waiting area and the ventilation was inadequate. In addition the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X

3.45 Customers were not made aware of the availability of private interview rooms. However, if they specifically requested an interview away from the reception area so that they would not be overheard, a private interview room was used.

3.46 The First Contact counter was able to deal with simple enquiries and could receive documents if requested. This service was dependent on the number of customers queuing in the reception area.

3.47 All staff on the reception counters and the Customer Services manager had access to electronic queue monitoring information that showed numbers of customers waiting, the length of time they had been waiting and the category of their visit once assessed by First Contact. This information was used on a daily basis to manage queues but not for longer term planning.

3.48 Particular problems with queue management were highlighted by the Customer Services manager and observed during visits to the reception area. The most significant problem being customers not understanding how the queuing system worked after they had been seen by First Contact. Customers retained the original ticket and number issued on arrival. However, as the subsequent queues moved at differing speeds, it appeared that some customers were jumping the queue. We witnessed irritation, to perceived queue jumping, expressed by customers in reception, on several occasions. This lack of understanding was despite verbal guidance offered by First Contact and information posters in reception.

3.49 Depending on the complexity of the customer’s enquiry, the customer could be required to see more than one appropriate person. The lack of flexibility of the queuing system meant that the customer was dealt with in a fragmented way and that after each part of the query was dealt with, the customer would be required to join another queue.

3.50 From our observations during visits to the reception area, the average time from taking a ticket, to being seen by First Contact, was 4 minutes. The time taken was dependent on numbers of customers waiting. The waiting time ranged between 10 seconds and 13 minutes.

3.51 We were told all Customer Services staff had access to the benefits IT system and had received appropriate training to enable them to answer the majority of customer enquiries immediately. However, staff told us that claims received were not always logged onto the system promptly, so information required to advise customers of the progress of claims could be missing.

3.52 Ultraviolet document scanners were available behind the counter. We were told that these were routinely used for the verification of certain documents, such as passports.

3.53 We were told that all Customer Services staff were Verification Framework trained. Experienced Benefits service staff had provided the training. However, we found that some staff who were required to cover First Contact during peak periods or spells of absence had not been Verification Framework trained. This meant that customers could receive a different service depending on which member of staff they saw as some could verify documents and some could not.

3.54 Photocopying facilities were available adjacent to the rear of the Customer Services reception area.

Publicity

3.55 Leaflets concerning HB and other benefits were available in reception, displayed on carousels and wall stands. However, during busy periods, the lack of open space within the reception area did not lend itself to browsing by customers. Only one of these leaflets was produced by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham itself and related to the council’s fraud hotline.

3.56 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s website offered customers a comprehensive range of information relating to its services and in particular HB and CTB related matters. The website was relatively easy to navigate and user-friendly. However, as already highlighted, details of opening times were not accurate.

Information management

3.57 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham operated a manual receipting system that provided customers with written confirmation of documents seen or retained by Customer Services staff and listed the documents still to be supplied by the customer. Copies of the receipt were retained by the Benefits service and used to review progress on claims completion on a weekly basis.

3.58 However, because of poor information management within the Benefits service, customers were frequently requested to provide documents already seen and acknowledged by way of the receipting system. This resulted in repeat visits by customers to the Customer Services reception. Customers returning for second and in some cases third visits were not given priority on the ticketed queuing system. This led to delays and increased customer frustration. This problem had been raised at Customer Services team meetings but no progress had been made on its resolution. No information was available to quantify the extent of this problem.

3.59 Documents were not retained in the Customer Services section. As not all claim details were logged on the benefits IT system it was necessary for Customer Services staff, when dealing with customer enquiries, to leave the Customer Services section to retrieve casepapers filed with, or being processed by, the Logging and Pre-assessment and Assessment teams. This led to delays in dealing with individual customers and slowed queue clearance.

3.60 The Customer Services manager told us in some cases when customers had returned on repeat visits, he had gone to the main open plan Revenues Services office to track down the documents himself. He told us that documents were rarely not found.

3.61 Post received by hand from customers at the Customer Services counter during the day was taken to the main Revenues Services office once a day at 16.00. This post would then remain there, unsorted, until the following morning. All unopened post, other than that marked Fraud, would be dispatched to the Civic Centre to be dealt with by the main post opening section. HB and CTB post was then returned to Revenues Services to be logged and processed. Post could take 2 days before it was received by Revenues Services. At each stage post was date stamped, however, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was unable to provide data or analysis on post receipt times.

Dealing with correspondence

3.62 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Revenues Services' Customer Charter shown on the authority’s website, stated that all letters received from customers would be replied to within 10 working days. The corporate Customer Care Standards leaflet expanded on this to include
e-mails and faxes, within the same timescale.

3.63 There was no evidence that this target had been adopted by the Benefits service staff dealing with correspondence and performance against the target was not monitored.

3.64 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Benefits service did not monitor general correspondence separately, but dealt with it as part of the changes of circumstances workload. This meant it was unable to monitor whether it was replying to 80% of correspondence within 14 days as required by Standards.

3.65 However, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham operated what it termed a fast-track procedure. This meant that claims were prioritised if letters were received:

· about evictions

· stating the customer may complain to or write to an MP

· stating that previous letters had not received responses.

3.66 We found no evidence of any monitoring of this procedure to assess its effectiveness.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· monitors periods when the telephone system is unavailable and addresses any problems identified · monitors the Customer Services enquiry telephone line failure rate and provides the resources necessary to improve the service · informs the public clearly that private interviews are available · rigorously monitors performance on all forms of customer enquiry and produces and implements improvement action plans as appropriate · sets and monitors performance targets and introduces procedures to ensure the targets for dealing with correspondence are reached.

Effective training and development for customer services

3.67 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 a continuing high standard of customer service.

3.68 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because it did not have:

· a formal training and development programme for staff dealing with customer enquiries

· job descriptions for its staff that contain Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based customer service objectives.

3.69 We found that since April 2003 the following training had been delivered to Customer Services staff and the Visiting team who undertake verification visits and welfare visits to those who are unable to call at one of the council’s offices:

· authenticity of documents

· tax credits and Pension Credit

· Verification Framework.

3.70 The Customer Services team had not made use of the extensive corporate training programme for front line staff and managers. Within the Benefits service there was no formal training programme for Customer Services staff. Training had been delivered on an unstructured basis. For example, permanent staff who joined London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in April 2003 had attended a 6-day HB technical training course delivered by an external consultant. However, other staff who joined the council as temporary employees at the same time but who had subsequently become permanent employees had not received training.

3.71 There was also a corporate induction training programme but we found that not all of the Customer Services staff had attended.

3.72 Training was delivered by the Customer Services manager at weekly team meetings covering, for example, overpayment calculation and recovery procedures. Individual training needs were identified through formal
one-to-one meetings between the Customer Services manager and his staff. Training also followed issues that arose during day-to-day business, for example, when the Customer Services manager observed weaknesses when staff were dealing with customer enquiries.

3.73 HB and CTB circulars from the Department and internal memos were
e-mailed to staff and discussed at weekly meetings, to ensure there was a common understanding of what was required.

3.74 Staff were aware of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s appraisal system but told us that appraisals were not conducted according to corporate instructions. We were told that once the appraisal interview had been completed the appraisal record was completed, filed and not referred to again.

3.75 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided us with copies of job descriptions for Customer Services staff, none contained reference to key work objectives.

3.76 We have covered training and development of staff in more detail within the Strategic Management section of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· introduces a formal training programme for its Customer Services staff, ensuring that maximum use is made of events available corporately · develops job descriptions for its Customer Services staff that reflect their current duties and ensures that job descriptions contain Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based objectives.

Clear, informative decision letters

3.77 Letters to customers and other people affected need to inform them clearly about decisions made, and explain the decision clearly enough for them to decide whether they might have grounds for appeal.

3.78 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because its decision letters:

· did not meet the regulatory requirements

· contained limited information as to how calculations had been made

· did not clearly indicate that payment was not due, when appropriate

· gave little guidance to the customer as to the action they may take next.

3.79 Decision letters sent to customers did not comply with Schedule 6 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.

3.80 In addition, the decision letters sent out to customers when payments on account started did not comply with regulation 91(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. They did not indicate that the payment was being made on account. This resulted in confusion for customers and additional queries for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. This confusion was apparent in 2 (40%) of the payments on account cases we looked at.

3.81 We were provided with copies of standard letters. Those automatically generated by the benefits IT system were of poor quality. They were not written in plain English, particularly those where London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Benefits service could insert paragraphs or wording to tailor the letter for a specific customer.

3.82 The letters contained the address of the Civic Centre but made no specific reference to the Revenues Services office where all subsequent enquiries would be made. The letters included the telephone number of the Call Centre.

3.83 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was aware of the shortcomings of the system produced decision letters. A large number of requests for improvements to the letters was included on its list of enhancements required to the benefits IT system. These had not been dealt with and London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was unable to tell us when the requests were likely to be cleared.

3.84 In February 2002, London Borough of Barking published its Plain Language commitment to produce all written information clearly and simply so that it could be understood by everyone in the community. A project team set up included representatives from several departments and specific service areas. The aim was to review and, where appropriate, improve documentation for customers and staff over a 2-year period. A staff guide to writing using plain language was available on the authority's intranet. However, we could find no evidence that the Benefits service had reviewed and amended any of its documents in line with the Plain Language commitment at the time of our on-site inspection.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· amends its decision letters to meet the regulatory requirements · ensures that letters clearly indicate that payment is not due, when appropriate · includes in its letters clear guidance to the customer as to the action they may take next.

Accessible, quality service for customers with specific needs

3.85 It is important that eligible customers are not deterred from claiming because the Benefits service does not address their specific needs.

3.86 Services need to be accessible to people:

· with disabilities

· whose first language is not English

· with communication or learning difficulties

· who are vulnerable because of their age or physical or mental health problems.

3.87 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· no assessment of the standards of its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 1999 had taken place

· it did not have an up-to-date assessment of the service needs of key ethnic minority groups in its area

· there were no established procedures for the provision of suitable information for customers with learning and communication difficulties.

3.88 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham routinely offered home visits to customers who met locally determined needs criteria and had no one to assist them, as follows:

· customers over the age of 75

· disabled, including customers who were visually impaired

· customers whose partners had recently died.

3.89 We were told that a member of the Customer Services reception staff was able to communicate in British Sign Language, however, this service was not advertised to customers and not all staff were aware of its availability. There were several members of staff who could speak a language other than English but this service was not advertised.

3.90 We were told that Language Line was used by the Housing and Health Department and that it was being considered for wider use by Revenues Services, but at the time of the on-site phase of the inspection details had not been finalised.

3.91 Although there were corporate policies relating to equal rights and diversity, as covered in more detail in Strategic Management, there was minimal evidence that these had been put into action at a customer service level. All HB and CTB specific documentation available to customers was written in English only. Additionally no provision had been made for large font, braille or audio cassette material. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was unable to tell us when this situation would be resolved.

3.92 Corporate documents such as the complaints form and Your council tax information 2003-04 already offered a translation service into 8 languages and additional languages on application. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's Corporate Complaints section, within the Corporate Strategy Department, told us that it was in the process of further developing customer information in languages other than English.

3.93 A survey was completed during one week in July 2002 on accessibility of the HB and CTB office. This covered where the customer lived and how the customer travelled to the office. However, this proved to be inconclusive and was not developed further.

3.94 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham staff told us public transport within the borough was considered sufficient to give customers reasonable access to 90 Stour Road.

3.95 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it met with customer representative groups to discuss new developments and matters affecting both parties. We were provided with minutes from the quarterly advice agency meetings. The groups attending included:

· the Independent Living Agency

· Carers of Barking and Dagenham

· Barking Citizens Advice Bureau

· Thames Side Community Support

· Disabled Association of Barking and Dagenham.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· undertakes an assessment of the standards of its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 1999 and takes appropriate action · undertakes an up-to-date assessment of the service needs of key ethnic minority groups in its area and acts on the results · establishes and develops procedures for the provision of suitable information for customers with learning and communication difficulties.

Accessible, quality service for those in work

3.96 Working people may have limited opportunities to contact the local authority. It is important that authorities provide accessible quality services for those in work.

3.97 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· a review had not taken place 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.

3.98 Although the Benefits service was accessible throughout weekday lunchtimes, it had not otherwise researched the particular needs of people in work and so had not considered how the service might be adapted to be more suitable to their needs.

3.99 Enquiries from customers could be made to London Borough of Barking and Dagenham by e-mail and the e-mail address appeared on information available to the customers and the authority's website.

3.100 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan for 2003/07 included an action to investigate the impact and cost of extending opening hours of the Customer Services reception. This could benefit those in work by allowing them the opportunity of personal visits after normal working hours.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops and completes a review to establish the needs of those in work and implements an action plan to put in place the requirements of the findings of the review · acts on information received from Jobcentre Plus to enable the fast-tracking of claims of those who have started work.

Encouraging benefit take-up, reducing poverty

3.101 Local authority benefits 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.

3.102 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· it did not have documented evidence of planning and implementation of a strategy for encouraging take-up

· it did not have a plan that included work to identify and target information at particular groups, such as:

– under-claiming groups

– groups with a high chance of a successful claim

– groups who would be entitled to HB if they took up other benefits,

– working people on low income

· it had not taken part in joint working activities with Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service

· it did not display posters and provide leaflets at key public access points in the authority, other than Customer Services reception.

3.103 However, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham advised Council Tax payers of CTB by means of an information leaflet supplied with Council Tax bills. The leaflet gave clear information on criteria and included the contact number of the Customer Services Call Centre.

3.104 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham also provided benefit claim forms to all council tenants prior to the tenant signing up for the tenancy.

3.105 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it did not display posters or provide leaflets at all key public access points, such as libraries, advertising the availability of HB and CTB.

3.106 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham reported that it had held a joint surgery with The Pension Service at 90 Stour Road and planned further surgeries weekly from 10.00 - 12.00. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided us with copies of information posters sponsored by Havering local Pension Service.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops and implements a strategy for encouraging benefit take-up · develops an action plan that includes work to identify and target information at particular groups, such as: - under-claiming groups - groups with a high chance of a successful claim - groups who would be entitled to HB if they took up other benefits - working people on low income · participates in joint working activities with Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service · displays posters and leaflets advertising the availability of HB and CTB at all key public access points.

Addressing complaints about the service effectively

3.107 It is important that complaints are dealt with promptly, and the complainant is given an informative explanation and an apology and rectification if appropriate.

3.108 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was close to, but not at, Standard in this element because it did not identify and register all complaints received.

3.109 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had a cross-departmental complaints monitoring IT system. This was managed centrally by the Corporate Complaints section. Each department within London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had a nominated complaints officer who was responsible for monitoring the progress of complaints relative to that department and for updating the complaints monitoring IT system accordingly. The Rents and Benefits Business Unit had 3 staff allocated to it on a temporary basis to manage complaints.

3.110 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that a backlog of 79 complaints had been identified in June 2003. The oldest complaint outstanding had been received on 14 May 2003. A project to clear the backlog and develop the corporate complaints system within the Benefits service was established. A team was put in place to address relevant issues at the beginning of September 2003 and by early November 2003, 72 cases had been resolved and closed. We were told that at the start of the project all complainants were contacted in writing and advised of the situation and what the next steps would be. While we were on site the 7 remaining cases were also cleared.

3.111 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided information that showed, at the time of our on-site visit, there were 14 complaints relating to the Benefits service still awaiting a response. None of these complaints were overdue.

3.112 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s complaints leaflet was available to customers and was specifically offered to them when a complaint was made either by visitors to the designated HB and CTB offices or by telephone callers.

3.113 The leaflet, which had been updated in October 2003, included:

· an explanation of the complaints procedure

· the various methods by which a complaint could be made

· the timescales for response by the authority

· escalation stages

· helpful contact numbers at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

· the Local Government Ombudsman address to use if the complainant was not satisfied with the response

· the complaint form itself

· information in languages other than English.

3.114 Guidance on how to deal with a complaint in accordance with the corporate procedure had not been provided to Benefits service staff. The Customer Services team received appropriate training on this in January 2004 after the on-site phase of our inspection.

3.115 We identified that not all complaints about the Benefits service were being recorded. Potential complainants calling at the Customer Services reception had their complaints assessed and often dealt with by First Contact or a more appropriate person, depending on the nature of the complaint. In many cases the complainant was happy with the explanation given and left the office. Records of the meeting and the substance of the complaint were not always entered on the benefits IT system. While it is good customer service to deal with a customer’s problems in such a manner it is a loss of potentially valuable information if records are not fully maintained. Opportunities were lost for proactive service improvements based on useful customer information and complaints common to more than one department may not be identified at an early stage.

3.116 Figure 3.3 shows a breakdown of benefit complaints in relation to all departmental complaints received. From the data it is clear that the number of complaints received relating to benefits as a percentage of total complaints increased during 2003/04. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us this was correct and it was as a result of its efforts to raise the profile of the complaints procedure. It additionally indicates the improved quality of complaints logging.

Fig. 3.3: Complaints received by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Year	Total number of complaints	Benefits service related complaints
		Number	% of all complaints
2000/01	669	114	17
2001/02	472	296	63
2002/03	166	78	47
2003 - end of September	140	135	96

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

3.117 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us since the clearance of the complaints backlog it was in a position to investigate all complaints received through the corporate complaints procedure and provide analysis, recommendations and progress reports to senior managers. A summary of the information on corporate complaints was reported to Members through the Corporate Monitoring Group.

3.118 Progress was monitored on the corporate complaints monitoring IT system. From information gathered, procedural weaknesses and training needs were identified. As this process was relatively new it was accepted that it would take further development for it to become embedded in the Benefits service.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· identifies and registers all complaints received about the Benefits service · ensures that all Benefits service staff receive training on the corporate complaints procedure.

Dealing with requests for reconsiderations and appeal referrals effectively

3.119 Local authorities need to ensure that:

· appeals and requests for reconsideration are resolved as quickly as possible

· management information is used to inform the effectiveness of the local authority’s handling of disputes and appeals

· analysis is undertaken to ensure that any wider or common failures indicated are addressed.

3.120 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for this element because:

· there were delays in dealing with requests for reconsideration and appeals

· it did not give requests for reconsideration and appeals referrals sufficient priority

· it did not produce management information to monitor the progress of requests for reconsideration and appeal referrals

· there was no analysis undertaken to ensure procedural and training weaknesses were addressed.

3.121 Letters of appeal and requests for reconsideration were received as part of the normal post opening system and were extracted by the Control Officer (Logging). No records or management information was kept for individual appeals or requests for reconsideration.

3.122 We were told that the Assessment team normally had responsibility for dealing with requests for reconsideration. However, if it involved a decision on the recovery of an HB overpayment, responsibility fell to the Overpayment team. The Operations Officer (Appeals and Overpayments) had responsibility for preparing cases for a hearing by the appeal tribunal, unless the case was a result of action taken by the Counter-fraud team. In these cases the appeal was handled by the Counter-fraud manager.

3.123 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not have formal procedures in place for processing appeals. It could not provide assurance that it had made adequate provision to deal effectively with requests for reconsideration or appeals to comply with guidance set out in the Department's circulars A11/2001 and A18/2001.

3.124 We selected 10 cases comprising 7 appeals and 3 requests for reconsideration. We found 2 appeals where the Counter-fraud manager had decided that the overpayment was fraudulent and prepared the case for appeal rather than the Operations Officer (Appeals and Overpayments). This is not good practice.

3.125 We found that no formal targets had been set for dealing with requests for reconsideration or appeal. There was no monitoring of cases at any stage of the process. Information on levels of service was not included in reports to senior officers or Members. We were told during the on-site phase of the inspection that referrals to the appeals tribunal were up-to-date, but we had no means of confirming the position as London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not maintain records.

3.126 In all 3 requests for reconsideration we found delays in the process. The average time between date of receipt and decision was 133 days. It then took a further 24 days on average before the outcome was reported to the customer.

3.127 Levels of performance on the 7 appeal cases were worse. We found that it took on average 251 days from date of receipt to decision. Once the appeal tribunal had decided cases, outcomes were quickly reported to the appellant. In 2 cases the appeal tribunal found in favour of the appellant. The average time from receipt of appeal to the date of the tribunal hearing for these cases was 375 days.

3.128 Delays were attributed to not having sufficient staff trained to deal with appeals. We were told that when the Operations Officer (Appeals and Overpayments) was absent, the work was left until the officer returned. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that as part of the restructuring of the Benefits service a further 2 staff would be trained on appeals work.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops formal written procedures to ensure that requests for reconsideration and appeals are processed effectively · develops performance targets relating to requests for reconsideration and appeals and includes these in the next Revenues Services business plan · introduces a procedure whereby all requests for reconsideration and appeals are effectively monitored so that data can be analysed to allow London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to: - understand the grounds for dispute and place them into categories that would allow them to analyse the information - record every stage through which the dispute passes and the dates it does so - record the actions and outcomes of each stage, to include the nature of the decision taken and the status of the case - identify staff training needs and weaknesses in existing business procedures · ensures staff treat requests for reconsideration and appeals as high priority to improve processing times · collates management information on requests for reconsideration and appeals and reports outcomes to senior officers and Members on a quarterly basis · provides awareness training for staff and managers within the Benefits service on the processes to be adopted when dealing with requests for reconsideration and appeals.

Previous
Next