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 Services are 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.
Clear, simple, accessible claim forms
3.2 Clear HB and CTB claim forms can help reduce the need for requests for further information from the customer. They 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.
3.3 London Borough of Bromley was at Standard in this element.
3.4 During our first inspection we recommended that London Borough of Bromley revised its claim form in line with BFI good practice. Following our first inspection London Borough of Bromley introduced a new improved claim form. The form was used for new and renewal claims.
3.5 The claim form produced by the Service Provider was based on the Department’s HB and CTB claim form. It had some good features including:
· clear layout and an easy to read font
· set of guidance notes to aid completion
· examples of the types of changes that affect benefit entitlement and should be notified to the London Borough of Bromley
· reference to rights of appeal against decisions
· checklist of the evidence needed to support claims and examples of evidence that would be accepted to prove identity.
3.6 The claim form was readily available to applicants wanting to make a claim. It was issued by the Service Provider in response to telephone requests and at the following locations:
· Exchequer House
· the Civic Centre
· helpline Call Centre, Sheffield
· the 10 largest housing associations
· Citizens Advice Bureaux throughout the borough.
3.7 London Borough of Bromley told us that claim forms at these locations were restocked on a regular basis.
3.8 London Borough of Bromley had an electronic claim form, known as the e-benefit form. The e-benefit system was used exclusively for new claims submitted by registered housing associations.
3.9 The Customer Service team had a guide that detailed the e-benefit system. The customer was required to contact the housing association to make a claim. Once it was established that the claim fulfilled the criteria set out the guide, the housing association representative:
· contacted the Customer Service team to arrange an appointment for the customer
· explained the process to the customer and advised them of the documents required to support the claim at interview.
3.10 We were told 25 - 30 claims each week were completed using this method. From 3 December 2003 London Borough of Bromley planned to increase its staffing to enable 50 claims per week to be completed using this process.
Timely, helpful response to public enquiries
3.11 This section is concerned with measures, such as opening hours, speed of response and the quality of service provided.
3.12 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard in this element because it did not:
· ensure 80% of customers arriving, with or without appointments, were seen within 15 minutes of their arrival at the reception based in Exchequer House
· keep records to show appointment times were allocated within 14 days of a telephone request
· advertise that private interview rooms were available on request
· have management checks in place to monitor the stock of forms and posters on display
· demonstrate that it dealt with 80% of correspondence within 14 days.
Telephone service
3.13 The Service Provider operated a telephone helpline from its Sheffield office. Lines to the service were open from 08:30 – 17:30, Monday – Friday for a total of 45 hours per week. The lines dedicated to London Borough of Bromley enquiries were dealt with by 2 teams each with 10 staff and a team leader.
3.14 Management
information showed that during the period
March 2003 – September 2003 an average of 18,122 calls per month were made
to the helpline. Figure 3.2 gives a monthly breakdown of calls received and
abandoned.
|
Fig. 3.2: Analysis of
telephone calls to the Service Provider helpline from |
||||
|
Calls received |
Calls answered |
Calls abandoned |
% Abandoned |
|
|
March 2003 |
27,735 |
16,261 |
11,474 |
41 |
|
April 2003 |
16,473 |
13,031 |
3,442 |
21 |
|
May 2003 |
17,650 |
13,561 |
4,089 |
23 |
|
June 2003 |
17,194 |
14,863 |
2,331 |
14 |
|
July 2003 |
17,716 |
16,009 |
1,707 |
10 |
|
Calls received |
Calls answered |
Calls abandoned |
% Abandoned |
|
|
August 2003 |
14,943 |
14,151 |
792 |
5 |
|
September 2003 |
15,148 |
15,010 |
138 |
1 |
|
Totals |
126,859 |
102,886 |
23,973 |
19 |
Source: BFI analysis.
3.15 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XX Figure 3.2 shows a reduction in the number of calls abandoned over the period between March 2003 – September 2003 with the target achieved in August and September 2003.
3.16 London
Borough of Bromley carried out a mystery shopping exercise on the helpline
to measure compliance with the Service Specification. We were provided with
details of 70 calls made to the helpline between
4 June – 8 September 2003. These calls confirmed monitoring took place against
the following criteria:
· the range of helpline options the caller could choose from
· calls received were answered within the timescales set in the Service Specification
· the quality of the responses given
· how long calls were held in a queue.
3.17 The monitoring revealed that, of the 70 calls made, only 14 (20%) were answered by the helpline within 20 seconds.
3.18 There were plans to introduce a telephone service that addressed the needs of working customers. For example, consideration was being given to extending the helpline opening hours.
3.19 London
Borough of Bromley provided a dedicated telephone line and
e-mail facilities for Members to make enquiries on behalf of residents.
3.20 A dedicated telephone line for HB and CTB enquiries was located in the Council Tax reception area within the Civic Centre.
Customer reception points
3.21 London Borough of Bromley had one designated reception to deal with enquiries regarding HB and CTB. This was based in Exchequer House. The Customer Service team had 6 Customer Service Advisers and a dedicated team leader.
3.22 There were no public signs outside the building indicating the HB and CTB reception was located there.
3.23 Although the main reception for personal callers was in Exchequer House there was a public reception at the Civic Centre. This reception also held supplies of claim forms and issued them when required.
3.24 Receptionists
at the Civic Centre told us callers arrived on a daily basis requesting help
with HB and CTB matters. These callers had to be redirected to Exchequer House.
The absence of signs, both inside and outside the buildings, was recognised
by the Service Provider. During a visit in
December 2003 we observed that the signage had improved.
3.25 Staff at the Civic Centre did not redirect customers with limited mobility and arranged for a Customer Services Adviser to deal with them at the Civic Centre.
3.26 The Exchequer House reception was open from 08:30 – 17:00 each working day, with the exception of Wednesday, when the reception opened at 09:30. This later opening time was for staff training.
3.27 The reception had 6 interview points. Customer Service Advisers dealing with the public were experienced officers and dealt with queries in respect of HB and CTB, Council Tax and Business Rates.
3.28 The reception had seating for 30 people. There were notice boards in the reception but they were poorly sited, inaccessible and did not carry a wide range of posters.
3.29 London Borough of Bromley had an electronic queue management system. This recorded the number of callers and identified the type of enquiry. Customer Service Advisers entered information on a keypad as each caller was seen. The recorded data was used by the team leader to analyse the time taken for each enquiry.
3.30 XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
We analysed data from
September 2003 – October 2003. Figure 3.3 shows the results.
|
Fig. 3.3: Waiting times
for callers to Exchequer House from |
||
|
Waiting time (minutes) |
Callers |
% |
|
Up to 10 |
2,994 |
47 |
|
11 – 20 |
1,310 |
21 |
|
21 – 30 |
938 |
15 |
|
Over 30 |
1,099 |
17 |
|
Total |
6,341 |
100 |
Source: BFI analysis.
3.31 Performance Standards require 80% of callers be seen within 15 minutes of their arrival. London Borough of Bromley did not collect data against this target. Figure 3.3 above shows it did not meet this target as only 68% of callers were seen within 20 minutes of their arrival.
3.32 London Borough of Bromley did not use data from the electronic queue management system effectively. For example, data collected regarding the nature of enquiries was not analysed to establish trends and identify areas for improvement.
3.33 To speed up the process a pre-reception point was sited near the entrance door. This was introduced to quickly identify the nature of enquiries. London Borough of Bromley planned to use this area to verify and scan documents necessary to support claims in line with the Verification Framework.
3.34 Customer Service Advisers saw the pre-reception point as an improvement to the service. The officer assigned to this post was used on other duties when there were staff shortages or a build up of work elsewhere on reception to make best use of available staff.
3.35 Performance Standards require scheduled appointments to be allocated within 14 days of the request being made.
3.36 The process for requesting appointments by telephone involved:
· receipt of the original enquiry by the helpline or direct from the customer
· if appropriate, receipt of an e-mail or fax by the Customer Service team Leader to arrange an appointment on behalf of the customer
· the customer contacted and given details of the next available appointment.
3.37 London Borough of Bromley was confident it met the Standard of allocating appointments within 14 days of the request. However, no records were kept to confirm this.
3.38 The reception at Exchequer House had private interview rooms but there were no signs advertising these were available.
3.39 London Borough of Bromley was not Verification Framework compliant, although it planned to commence implementation in February 2004, with full compliance from May 2004.
3.40 Customer Service Advisers verified documents provided with the claim form and checked that the forms were signed. In response to customer feedback, customers were given a receipt for items seen at reception. This receipt recorded:
· the documents provided in support of the claim
· any advice given
· a written reminder of any further evidence required to be able to process the claim.
3.41 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
3.42 To achieve Standard an authority should provide a stock of HB and CTB leaflets covering:
· who can apply, including students, persons from abroad and those in work
· how to apply, and the need to notify changes of circumstances
· how HB and CTB would be calculated, covering eligible and ineligible charges, non-dependant deductions, absence from home, backdating and Discretionary Housing Payments
· how to complain
· how to dispute and appeal a decision.
3.43 The reception at Exchequer House had an insufficient range of forms to meet Performance Standards. This problem was rectified during the on-site phase of the inspection.
3.44 The reception at the Civic Centre did not have the range of leaflets for all topics specified in Performance Standards. The improved provision of leaflets and forms seen at Exchequer House was not extended to the Civic Centre reception.
3.45 To establish if the authority was delivering a timely, helpful response to public enquiries we would expect the authority to have carried out customer surveys to determine the level of customer satisfaction with the service being delivered.
3.46 The last customer survey performed by London Borough of Bromley was completed for the Best Value Performance Indicator in 2000/01.
3.47 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X The Service Provider had negotiated an easement in respect of this requirement for the first year of the contract. The first part of a customer survey had commenced in September 2003. The second batch of questionnaires was to be sent out in January 2004.
3.48 London Borough of Bromley told us it expected the results of the survey to be ready for publication by April 2004. It is important for London Borough of Bromley to undertake an evaluation of the survey’s effectiveness. This will allow the identification and introduction of any local adjustments that could further improve its performance.
3.49 We were unable to find any evidence that such an evaluation followed the customer survey of 2000/01 or that results had been made available to senior officers, Members or published to residents.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· monitors its performance to ensure customers are seen within 15 minutes of arrival at Exchequer House · introduces procedures to demonstrate appointments are allocated within 14 days of the request · clearly publicises the accessibility of private interview rooms · produces and holds stocks of public information leaflets and other information about HB and CTB and ensures these are widely available · ensures a documented management check by a senior officer to check the availability of leaflets and claim forms · carries out customer surveys in line with Performance Standards and ensures: - analysis of the customer surveys - submission of the results to senior offices, Members and residents - it takes action in respect of identified needs. |
Dealing with correspondence
3.50 Performance Standards state a local authority should respond substantively to 80% of correspondence within 14 calendar days or less. It should also monitor performance against this target.
3.51 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard because it could not demonstrate it met the required timescales for the full range of correspondence.
3.52 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 If, due to the complexity of the enquiry, a full reply could not be supplied then a holding letter had to be issued within 3 working days stating when a full reply would be provided.
3.53 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley introduces a report that identifies response times to general correspondence and monitors performance against Performance Standards. |
Effective training and development for customer service
3.54 It is important staff should be equipped to deliver good customer service. Training and development should be provided that will:
· allow staff to respond to enquiries, ensuring the service is right first time
· ensure continuing high standards of customer service.
3.55 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard in this element because the training provided did not:
· consider the training and developmental needs of all new and existing staff
· ensure training was evaluated
· have a formalised programme that addressed training and development needs for new and existing Customer Service Advisers.
3.56 Staff based at the Sheffield helpline received a structured 15-month training programme. However, the only induction training given to Customer Service Advisers based at Exchequer House was job shadowing.
3.57 Exchequer House reception opened from 09:30 on Wednesdays to allow for staff training. Customer Service Advisers had regular refresher training in customer awareness and legislative changes, such as Pension Credit. Further training was scheduled for Customer Service Advisers in anticipation of London Borough of Bromley becoming Verification Framework compliant.
3.58 Customer Service Advisers were included in the weekly training sessions but did not benefit from the level of training provided to other Benefits service staff.
3.59 We found that Customer Service Advisers had only one target. This target was to clear callers within 15 minutes, but this was not accurately measured.
3.60 Customer Service Advisers and Benefit Assessors need to be mindful of fraudulent claims being made. The Service Provider was responsible for fraud awareness training for London Borough of Bromley. Customer Service Advisers received a fraud awareness session in June 2003 but there was no structured programme of fraud awareness training for staff dealing with the public.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· ensures that customer service staff have work objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed · introduces a formalised training programme for new and existing Customer Service Advisers · ensures training is evaluated. |
Clear, informative decision letters
3.61 Letters to customers and other affected persons need to inform them about decisions made, and explain the decision clearly enough for them to decide whether they might have grounds for appeal.
3.62 London Borough of Bromley was at Standard in this element.
3.63 We compared a range of decision letters generated from the Benefit IT system, against Schedule 6 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992. London Borough of Bromley’s letters contained all the information required.
Accessible, quality service for customers with specific needs
3.64 It is important eligible customers are not deterred from claiming because the Benefits service does not address their specific needs.
3.65 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.
3.66 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard because it did not:
· annually assess the effectiveness of services provided for customers with special needs
· supply any of its claim forms or leaflets in large scale font or on audio cassette
· publicise that interpretation services were available to callers with language needs.
3.67 Although the Language Line interpretation service was available to Customer Service Advisers, London Borough of Bromley did not publicise the service. Callers requiring an interpreter were usually asked to return with family or friends to assist them.
3.68 We found some strengths including liaison with:
· organisations representing vulnerable customers, for example MIND
· Citizens Advice
· housing associations that provided services to customers with specific needs.
3.69 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
3.70 London
Borough of Bromley introduced a Visiting Strategy in
August 2003 offering home visits to the disabled, vulnerable, elderly and
infirm, to assist them in completing claim forms and resolving queries.
3.71 Bromley town centre is well served by various forms of public transport. The Civic Centre and Exchequer House are both in the town centre and easily accessible from all parts of the area.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· at least annually, assesses the effectiveness of the services provided for customers with special needs · takes appropriate action as a result of these assessments · maintains and displays at Exchequer House and the Civic Centre, a supply of HB and CTB information leaflets and claim forms in suitable formats, for visually and hearing impaired customers · publicises that interpretation services are available to callers with language needs. |
Disability
3.72 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that those responsible for public buildings takes such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to provide access to disabled persons or provide a reasonable alternative method of making services available to such a person.
3.73 The reception at Exchequer House had ramps enabling access for wheelchair users and for callers with limited mobility. There were no facilities for hearing impaired customers such as hearing loops or textphones.
3.74 Disabled customers were given access to toilets for disabled staff on request. At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection there were no notices advising customers that disabled toilets were available. However, we observed that signs had been introduced at a later visit to London Borough of Bromley.
3.75 Public areas of the Civic Centre were fully accessible to disabled customers and had a range of facilities to assist callers including:
· ramped access to all public areas
· wide doorways
· toilets for the disabled
· power assisted doors
· lifts
· hearing loops.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley ensures: |
|
· adequate signage to advise callers of the facilities available · that facilities such as hearing loops and textphones are provided for hearing impaired customers. |
Accessible, quality service for those in work
3.76 Working people may have limited opportunities to contact the local authority. It is important authorities provide accessible quality services for those in work. Working people may have particularly complex claims, for instance if their earnings fluctuate from week to week, or if they take temporary work interspersed by short periods of unemployment.
3.77 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard in this element. There had been no formal assessment of whether the service met the needs of working customers.
3.78 A trial of Saturday morning opening had been scheduled to take place for a 6-week period in May 2003, but the trial was abandoned after one week due to lack of take-up. A late night opening to coincide with late night shopping and an extension of the telephone service were being considered. London Borough of Bromley had set no firm dates for these initiatives.
3.79 We found some strengths including issuing new claim forms when entitlement to HB or CTB through IS or JSA(IB) ceased, inviting claims on the grounds of low income and offering appointments to working customers.
3.80 Visitors to London Borough of Bromley’s website were able to access basic advice and guidance in respect of HB and CTB. The site also had contact telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· carries out an annual review to measure the effectiveness of the services for working customers |
|
· develops an action plan from the review to enhance the service. |
Encouraging benefit take-up, reducing poverty
3.81 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.
3.82 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard, because it did not:
· have a strategy for encouraging benefit take-up
· have information to identify and target potential customers who were working but on low incomes, or disadvantaged groups with a high chance of making a successful claim
· communicate its approach to potential customers, housing associations and representative groups
· work with the Department to encourage targeted take-up
· display posters and provide leaflets at key public access points regarding take-up of HB and CTB.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· develops a strategy for benefit take-up that: - targets information at particular groups, for example under-claiming groups, groups with a high chance of a successful claim or people on low incomes - includes joint working initiatives with internal and external stakeholders - advertises the availability of HB and CTB to residents on low incomes at all council reception points and provides information leaflets about extended payments and fast-tracking - routinely offers advice to customers who intend starting work. |
Addressing complaints about the service effectively
3.83 It is important complaints are dealt with promptly, and the complainant is given an explanation, information, an apology and rectification if appropriate.
3.84 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard in this element because:
· there was a lack of clear documented guidance for staff handling HB and CTB complaints
· there were inconsistencies in the targets for responding to complaints
· it did not keep up-to-date monitoring information on the progress of complaints.
3.85 A corporate complaints process covered all London Borough of Bromley’s services and an annual Getting it Right report was produced for members of the public and distributed at council reception points and libraries. There was also a customer leaflet that outlined the corporate complaints process. There were 3 stages to this process:
· complaint received in the office and passed to the relevant service to resolve and reply to the complainant
· if the complainant was not satisfied with the reply, the matter was escalated to the chief officer of the service
· if the complainant remained unhappy after this further review, the matter was escalated to the Chief Executive.
3.86 London Borough of Bromley had a well-documented and publicised corporate complaints procedure and set the following corporate targets for dealing with complaints:
· straightforward complaints should be dealt with in 3 working days
· for more complicated cases, an interim reply should be provided within 3 working days and a full reply issued within 7 working days
· where it was necessary to collate information to deal with the complaint, a holding reply should explain the reason for the delay and state when a full reply would be sent.
3.87 The Service Provider’s Specialist team dealt with complaints about the Benefits service.
3.88 The Specialist Team Leader recorded progress of all complaints. However, this record was kept against a target for complaints to be either acknowledged or resolved within 5 working days and not the 3-day target set by London Borough of Bromley in the corporate complaints procedure.
3.89 Figure 3.4 shows that London Borough of Bromley failed to meet either its 5 or 3-day target for the period from April 2002 - November 2003.
|
Fig. 3.4 Complaints acknowledged
within 5 working days from |
|||
|
Period |
Total |
Acknowledged or cleared within 5 working days of receipt |
% Acknowledged or cleared within 5 working days of receipt |
|
April 2002 – March 2003 |
564 |
267 |
47 |
|
April 2003 – November 2003 |
185 |
113 |
61 |
|
Total |
749 |
380 |
51 |
Source: London Borough of Bromley
3.90 London Borough of Bromley did not keep records to show the progress of first stage complaints. It was unaware how long the complaints’ process had taken, for example, how long it took Benefit Assessors to pass cases to the Specialist team.
3.91 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
3.92 Individuals making complaints had recourse to an independent complaint procedure. Posters advertising the Local Government Ombudsman service and copies of the Local Government Ombudsman leaflet Complaint about the Council? were available at all public receptions.
3.93 There were some areas of good practice. All members of the Specialist Team were experienced officers with a background in benefit assessment.
3.94 All Benefits service staff were aware of the need to deal with complaints and appeals urgently. Staff told us that complaints were referred to the Specialist team on receipt.
3.95
London Borough of Bromley
provided a dedicated telephone line and
e-mail facilities for councillors and representatives acting for vulnerable
groups, for example the local association of MIND, to submit complaints.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· aligns the targets for dealing with HB and CTB complaints with the corporate targets set out in the Getting it Right annual report |
|
· ensures that the corporate targets meet Performance Standards · documents HB and CTB complaints procedures, clearly setting out the targets for dealing with complaints · ensures: - staff are aware of procedures and targets for dealing with complaints - that compliance against procedures and targets is monitored · accurately measures the time taken to deal with complaints, recording all stages of the process to: - identify areas for improvement by type of complaint received - demonstrate the time taken for the council to respond to complaints - document the outcome of complaints. |
Dealing with requests for reconsiderations and appeal referrals effectively
3.96 Local authorities need to ensure:
· 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 reconsiderations and appeals
· analysis is performed to ensure any wider or common failures indicated are addressed.
3.97 London Borough of Bromley was not at Standard in this element because it:
· lacked clear documented guidance for staff handling appeals
· did not keep accurate and up-to-date management information on the progress of reconsiderations and appeals.
3.98 Staff told us that a member of the Post Opening team sifted all letters received prior to scanning, to identify urgent post, appeals and complaints. Cases identified as a request for a reconsideration or an appeal were immediately referred to the Specialist team. There were no formal targets but appeals were prioritised as follows:
· cases with a threat of eviction
· appeals involving MPs and councillors
· appeals involving housing associations and other organisations, such as Citizens Advice
· others, in strict date order.
3.99 Although there was no documented guidance, staff told us that the process for dealing with reconsiderations or appeals was as follows:
· all appeals were logged, on the day of receipt, by the Specialist team
· the original decision was checked by a Benefit Assessor to ensure it was correct
· if the original decision needed to be revised, the case was passed to the Benefits Monitoring Officers with a recommendation from the Benefit Assessor
· all decisions were made by London Borough of Bromley’s client-side
· cases were returned to the Specialist team to issue a written explanation and if appropriate, a new decision with new appeal rights
· if the original decision remained unchanged, a letter was issued to the customer advising the case had been reconsidered, but the decision remained unchanged, or where appropriate, was being prepared for submission to the Appeals Service.
3.100 The following areas of good practice were noted:
· clear decision letters were issued informing customers of their rights to reconsideration and appeal and a written statement was made explaining any decision
· an information booklet from the Appeals Service explaining the appeals process was sent to all appellants
· all cases were reviewed by a different Benefit Assessor from the one who made the original decision
· appeals were dealt with by experienced officers
· staff were trained to present cases at appeal tribunals.
3.101 The Specialist Team Leader performed a 100% check of all letters sent in response to complaints, reconsiderations and appeals. Any letter requiring amendment was returned to the author with comments attached and the amended letter was then subject to a further review.
3.102 A report was sent to the Service Provider on a monthly basis regarding the number of outstanding appeals. No records were kept on the progress of appeals or how long each separate stage had taken.
3.103 In December 2002 the Local Government Ombudsman awarded compensation to an appellant because London Borough of Bromley had taken too long to refer the case to the Appeals Service. Because of the lack of records regarding the progress of appeals and complaints, we were unable to assess how long London Borough of Bromley was taking to refer cases to the Appeals Service at the time of our inspection.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that London Borough of Bromley: |
|
· documents the appeals procedure and makes it available to staff · ensures staff are aware of procedures and targets for dealing with reconsiderations and appeals · records and monitors the time taken to deal with each stage of the request for reconsideration and appeals processes. |