Customer Services

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

Source: BFI inspection assessment

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, 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 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· ensure regular supplies of HB and CTB claim forms were available at its
2 enquiry counters

· include appropriate consent wording allowing the sharing of information with landlords on the progress of a claim.

3.4 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had one claim form for all new HB and CTB applications and a separate form for HB and CTB renewals. It also had a separate form specifically designed for hostel dwellers, in recognition of the difficult circumstances this type of customer faced.

3.5 Each form had some very good features and followed the design of the Department’s model claim form by:

· including clear signposting

· providing checklists

· giving guidance on the types of evidence customers must provide in support of their claim

· detailing the changes customers must report and examples of the types of changes.

3.6 Staff told us claim forms were not always available. For example, 4 - 6 weeks before the on-site phase of our inspection, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had exhausted its supply of claim forms and was therefore unable to issue any to customers. This was because the council did not monitor its stock levels, with the result that the supply of claim forms sometimes ran out. However, while we were on site Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council introduced a process to ensure stocks of claim forms were monitored and re-ordered when necessary.

3.7 The claim forms did not include appropriate consent wording allowing the sharing of information with landlords on the progress of a claim. We comment further on this point in the Working with Landlords section of this report.

3.8 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council commenced an electronic benefit claim form pilot in June 2003. The pilot scheme was initially introduced for customers at Lion Farm local neighbourhood office, but had been extended to cover HB and CTB customers at:

· Blackheath local neighbourhood office

· Cradley Heath Citizens Advice

· Trident Housing Association.

3.9 Customers willing to participate in the pilot had been invited to attend an appointment at Oldbury Council House, where a Customer Adviser completed their HB and CTB claim form electronically. The claim form was then printed out, signed by the customer and forwarded to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre for processing.

3.10 At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection, 77 applications had been processed through the pilot. We were told it had been well received by customers, who, on average, had seen their claims processed within 5 days of their appointment at Oldbury Council House. This compared very favourably against Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council's overall performance for processing of claims, which for the first 2 quarters of 2003/04, was 101 and
79 days respectively.

3.11 We interviewed staff at Cradley Heath Citizens Advice and Trident Housing Association involved in the pilot. While both welcomed the initiative, they reported it was too early to comment on the pilot scheme. This was because Cradley Heath Citizens Advice had only been involved with one case, and the housing association had only joined the pilot scheme in November 2003.

3.12 Although this pilot offered Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council an opportunity to improve the service to its customers and stakeholders, it needed to consider resources implications. For example:

· Customer Advisers spent between 30 and 45 minutes with customers, as they had to complete the claim forms electronically on behalf of the customer

· a Customer Adviser in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre was taken off call centre duties to process these claims. This affected the level of service provided to customers contacting the Revenues and Benefits service by telephone.

3.13 Staff also told us the entire electronic benefit claim form had to be printed out and signed by the customer before being sent off for scanning onto the electronic data management system. This was because there was no interface between the benefits IT system and the IT system being used for the pilot. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it planned to provide an interface but was unable to state when this would be available.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· ensures claim forms are always available for customers · incorporates into its claim form appropriate consent wording allowing it to share information with direct payment landlords on the progress of a claim.

Timely, helpful response to public enquiries

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

3.15 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· have sufficient Revenues and Benefits service call centre staff who were competent to respond to a wide range of claim enquiries, including detailed enquiries on the progress of individual cases

· set targets for answering the telephone

· answer 80% of phone calls during enquiry hours within 5 minutes

· ensure 80% of members of the public calling in at its enquiry counters during opening hours:

- without an appointment, were seen within 15 minutes of their arrival at the office, by a person at least competent to deal with basic queries and able to allocate appointment times

- requesting on-the-spot help, could, within 30 minutes of their arrival at the office have their enquiry resolved, or see a competent Benefits Assessor, or person able to assist with more complicated problems such as queries regarding assessment and entitlement

· publicise that private interview facilities were available

· ensure customers with an appointment were seen within 15 minutes of their allotted appointment time

· provide a full range of public information leaflets relating to HB and CTB

· undertake regular checks to ensure the availability of public information leaflets

· monitor performance against its 10-day target for answering correspondence.

3.16 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council provided customer access to its Revenues and Benefits service through:

· a telephone call centre

· 2 enquiry counters

· a visiting service.

3.17 Customers were also able to gain access to the Revenues and Benefits service through the council’s 16 local neighbourhood offices. Council tenants with arrears and benefit related issues could go to one of 6 local neighbourhood offices where Housing Direct Arrears teams had been trained to check the completion of claim forms for accuracy and verify evidence of identity. The remaining 10 offices only provided limited help for customers with benefit enquiries, for example, supplying claim forms or providing details of the Revenues and Benefits service call centre contact number.

3.18 All Customer Advisers had direct access to customer claim files through the benefits IT system and the electronic data management system. Customer Advisers told us that they considered these initiatives had benefited customers, because they had been able to deal with their enquiries more effectively. However, our findings showed that there were still major weaknesses in customer services at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.

3.19 The Revenues and Benefits service had started to conduct a customer exit survey at both enquiry counters in September 2003. The survey was being conducted to capture the views of customers on the service provided to inform future service development plans. Customer Greeters were responsible for handing out and collecting these survey forms from customers. The survey was ongoing at the time of our inspection.

3.20 The Customer Services Manager told us while some analysis of the feedback provided had been completed, more detailed work needed to be done before the results were used to identify opportunities to improve the service.

Revenues and Benefits service call centre service

3.21 The Revenues and Benefits service call centre had a complement of
8 staff. It was open from 08.30 – 17.00, Monday – Thursday and
08.30 – 16.30 on Friday (42 hours per week). It had a dedicated telephone number for customers calling the Revenues and Benefits service, with up to 30 lines available.

3.22 The Revenues and Benefits service call centre system was
queue-based, with successful callers being initially provided with an automated menu. After this, callers waited in a queue for a Customer Adviser to answer their call.

3.23 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us that although 30 lines were available, the actual number of lines in use varied, depending upon the number of staff available to operate the service. The council was unable to provide any management information showing when decisions had been taken to reduce the number of lines, or the reasons associated with taking this course of action. However, we were told lines had been reduced when the maximum complement of 8 staff had reduced, as a result of:

· staff absence due to holidays

· staff absence due to sickness

· transferring Revenues and Benefits service call centre staff to enquiry counters when necessary, because they were considered to be priority areas.

3.24 Staff told us the Revenues and Benefits service call centre usually had 6 telephone lines open. We were provided with details of the number of Customer Advisers employed in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre over a 13-week period, from 4 August 2003 - 31 October 2003. The information showed:

· in 7 of the 13 weeks, 3 staff were scheduled to be on call centre duty every day

· in one of the 13 weeks, 4 staff were scheduled to be on call centre duty every day

· in 5 of the 13 weeks, 5 staff were scheduled to be on call centre duty every day.

3.25 However, Revenues and Benefits service call centre Customer Advisers were also required to provide coverage for the enquiry counters. We found in 9 of the13 weeks, for periods between one and 4 days, a Customer Adviser was loaned to an enquiry counter. This had the effect of reducing coverage in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre on certain days to only 2 staff.

3.26 Senior Officers also told us staff vacancies in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre were usually filled by new recruits, who received less training on benefits in comparison to that provided for Benefits Processors. As a result fewer calls were resolved and more customers were told to go to the enquiry counters to have their enquiry resolved.

3.27 We were provided with management reports from the Revenues and Benefits service call centre system. Our analysis of these reports indicated that for the 12-month period between November 2002 and October 2003:

· 54,881 calls had been received

· 38,766 calls (71%) had been answered, with the average time taken to answer calls being 6 minutes and 36 seconds

· 16,115 calls (29%) had been abandoned, with an average abandoned call waiting time of 3 minutes and 37 seconds

· the average time taken to deal with customer enquiries was 4 minutes and 48 seconds

· the longest time taken to answer the telephone was 52 minutes

· the longest time taken before a call was abandoned was 39 minutes.

3.28 Although these reports had been available since November 2002, only limited analysis had been carried out by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. For example, monthly management reports only referred to the:

· number of calls offered

· number of calls answered

· percentage of calls answered.

3.29 Staff told us there were no individual or team targets for Revenues and Benefits service call centre staff. As a result performance could not be effectively monitored.

3.30 In our last inspection Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was able to provide information which showed 75% to 85% of calls made to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre failed to get through. At that time the council acknowledged the Revenues and Benefits service call centre needed extra resources.

3.31 The Revenues and Benefits service call centre system in use during our last inspection was replaced by a new system in November 2002. The new system did not capture the number of calls lost. We were therefore unable to make a direct comparison with the findings of our last inspection to establish whether customers found it easier to get through to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre.

3.32 However, we telephoned the Revenues and Benefits service call centre on 48 separate occasions between 22 October 2003 and 7 November 2003. Our findings are shown at Figure 3.2.

Fig. 3.2: BFI mystery shopper exercise

Source: BFI analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.33 The number of calls abandoned because all lines were engaged represented 79% of the calls we made. This is a similar level of poor performance to that reported during our last inspection.

3.34 We also interviewed representatives from 2 local branches of Citizens Advice and 2 housing associations to obtain their views on the service provided by the Revenues and Benefits service call centre. They told us they had experienced difficulties in accessing the call centre. These difficulties included:

· not getting through

· long waiting times in the queuing system before the call was answered by a Customer Adviser.

3.35 The corporate Customer Relations team also reported it had received a high volume of telephone calls from customers complaining they had been unable to get through to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre. Figure 3.3 shows the frequency of those calls since April 2003.

Fig. 3.3: Benefits enquiry telephone calls received by corporate Customer Relations team since April 2003
Period	Number of calls
April – June	611
July – September	589
October – 26 November	534
Total	1,734

Source: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

3.36 The corporate Customer Relations team took details from these callers and arranged for the Revenues and Benefits service call centre to contact these customers within 24 hours. We comment further on this point under Addressing complaints about the service effectively.

3.37 The council also provided an e-mail address as an alternative method for customers to make contact. At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection it told us there had been a noticeable increase in customers using this facility over the previous 6 months. As a result it had started to monitor the type of enquiries received.

3.38 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it had recognised the difficulties its customers experienced when trying to access its Revenues and Benefits service through the Revenues and Benefits service call centre. The council aimed to address this problem through its Access for All programme. The main objective of this programme was:

To provide excellent joined up access to services at a time and place convenient to the customer.

3.39 To achieve this objective the council had identified a number of key actions it would need to take. They included:

· the delivery of a range of customer enquiry points and access channels designed to respond to the different ways customers wanted to contact the council

· a good quality, consistent customer interface delivered by well trained, highly motivated and rewarded staff

· delivery of as much as possible of the service at the first point of contact

· provision of information and promotion of other services which people need or may be entitled to.

3.40 The council told us one aim of its Access for All programme was to relocate the Revenues and Benefits service call centre into a purpose built corporate call centre in January 2004. All other council call centre staff would then transfer over the following months, leading to 150 operators handling all external calls. It was envisaged that the centralisation of all of the council’s call centre services would improve its overall telephone service, because Customer Advisers would be trained to deal with a range of enquiries, across a number of the council’s services.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· introduces formal procedures, targets and monitoring for the handling of telephone calls · makes use of the management information available and carries out analysis to identify performance issues to improve the service · ensures 80% of all telephone calls to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre are answered within 5 minutes.

Enquiry counters

3.41 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had 2 enquiry counters. They were located at Oldbury Council House and Lodge Road. Customer Advisers at those offices handled enquiries relating to HB and CTB, Council Tax and business rates. There was a total of 15 full-time and 4 part-time Customer Adviser posts at the 2 enquiry counters. This complement of staff included 2 Customer Greeters who were employed to meet and help customers with their enquiries when they first arrived.

3.42 Both locations operated 2 queuing systems. A fast flow queuing system was used for those enquiries that could be dealt with quickly, for example, customers handing in completed claim forms or producing identification in support of a claim previously made. The other queuing system was for customers who needed help in completing a claim form, or had a problem with their HB and CTB claim or Council Tax bill. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us these enquiries took longer to deal with.

3.43 Customer Greeters were employed at both enquiry counters to meet and help customers with their enquiries when they first arrived. We saw this being carried out and considered it worked well. For example, an elderly customer, who had suffered a bereavement, was taken to a private interview room to discuss their claim. Customer Greeters also decided which of the
2 queues customers should join, depending on the nature of their enquiry.

3.44 The enquiry counter at Oldbury Council House had seating for approximately 30 customers and had 8 interview points. In addition there were 2 private interview rooms for customers who were involved in the pilot scheme for the completion of electronic benefit forms. The private interview facilities were not advertised.

3.45 Lodge Road had seating for approximately 34 customers and had 7 interview points. It did not have private interview facilities, although the Senior Officer’s room was used for this purpose when necessary. This facility was not advertised. It was left to Customer Greeters to decide if a customer would benefit from this service.

3.46 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us during our last inspection, that one of the main findings from a customer survey it had undertaken was that customers were unhappy with waiting times. In response, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it proposed to install a caller management system at both sites to provide management information on the volume of callers and waiting times.

3.47 During the on-site phase of this inspection, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us the system had been purchased shortly after our last inspection, but had not been fully installed. The ticket issuing machines and electronic screens, which notified customers when an interview point became available by displaying the next number, had been installed at both locations and were being used. However, the computers and software needed to collect and analyse the information from the above systems, although purchased, had not been installed and had gone missing. The council told us it had
re-ordered up-to-date equipment while we were on site.

3.48 As a result of not installing the caller management system or employing alternative methods the council had been unable to:

· provide management information on customer waiting times

· measure its performance against the targets set out in Performance Standards, for customers calling in at its enquiry counters

· set informed targets to improve performance.

3.49 However, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council collected management information on the number of customers and type of enquiries it dealt with at each enquiry counter. It collated this information through monitoring sheets that recorded the type of customer enquiries they were dealing with. From this information the council was able to produce statistics that showed for the period April - November 2003, it served on average 726 customers per week at Oldbury Council House and 634 per week at Lodge Road.

3.50 The number of customers served at both sites varied significantly from that reported in our last inspection report. We were told that Oldbury Council House served on average 1,160 customers per week and Lodge Road 1,283, a reduction of 37% and 51% respectively. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us the reduction in the number of customers visiting both enquiry counters, was as a result of its decision in January 2003 to suspend renewal claims for council and housing association tenants. We comment on this further in the Processing of Claims section of this report.

3.51 While we were on site we interviewed 24 customers at Oldbury Council House and Lodge Road enquiry counters, to obtain their views on the service provided. Our findings in relations to waiting times are shown at Figure 3.4.

Fig. 3.4: BFI customer exit survey
Waiting times to be seen by a Customer Adviser in minutes	Number of customers
Less than 5	7
6 - 10	3
11 - 15	0
16 - 20	2
21 - 30	3
31 - 59	1
60+	8
Total	24

Source: BFI analysis

3.52 Figure 3.4 shows 14 customers (58%) waited longer than 15 minutes to be seen. This included 8 customers who waited longer than one hour to see a Customer Adviser. These waiting times are shown below:

· 4 customers waited one hour

· one customer waited one hour and 20 minutes

· 3 customers waited one hour and 30 minutes.

3.53 Staff told us it was not unusual for customers to wait up to 2 and a half hours to be seen, particularly on Mondays and Tuesdays, when they dealt with increased volumes of local authority tenants. This was because Housing Direct sent out arrears letters each Friday, which then resulted in customers enquiring about their HB and CTB claims early the following week.

3.54 Customers were able to book appointments by telephone and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had clear procedures setting out the action Customer Advisers should take if customers requested an appointment. It was also able to produce evidence to show that appointment times had always been allocated within 14 days.

3.55 However, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not able to confirm whether 80% of customers arriving for a pre-arranged appointment were seen within the Performance Standard of 15 minutes, because it did not monitor waiting times.

3.56 Customer Advisers followed written guidance and verified documents provided with claim forms. They also checked that claim forms had been completed properly and were signed. They recorded the actions taken by making suitable entries in the notebook section on the electronic data management system.

3.57 Customer Advisers in both locations used ultraviolet scanners to verify the authenticity of documents. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX

3.58 To achieve Standard, a council should produce and hold a clearly advertised stock of HB and CTB leaflets covering:

· who can apply, including students, persons from abroad and those in work

· how to apply, including the renewal process and the need to notify changes of circumstances

· how much HB and CTB the customer will get, covering eligible and ineligible charges, non-dependant deductions, absence from home, backdating and Discretionary Housing Payments

· the complaints process

· the appeals process.

3.59 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it had introduced an audit checking process for public information leaflets. It told us Customer Greeters had been made responsible for conducting these checks, with senior officers checking monthly to ensure the process was being followed.

3.60 We used the checklist the council had introduced to measure how many information leaflets were available at both enquiry counters. At Oldbury Council House we found 33 types (75%) of public information leaflets were on display, out of 44 listed on the checklist. However, stock levels behind the counter area were very low, with only 4 types of information leaflets being in stock.

3.61 At Lodge Road we found only 9 types (20%) of information leaflets were on display. Stock levels behind the counter were better than Oldbury Council House, but these stock levels had not been used to replenish displays, nor had they been checked to see whether all 44 types of leaflet were in stock.

3.62 Staff at Lodge Road told us the checking process had only been introduced in the week we carried out our check and they had only undertaken the first check while we were on site.

Customer surveys

3.63 In addition to the survey required for the Best Value Performance Indicator in 2000/01, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council launched a customer exit survey at both enquiry counters in September 2003. The views of customers had been sought on:

· the length of time it took to see a Customer Adviser

· the reason for their visit

· their opinion on the helpfulness, politeness and performance of staff

· the facilities provided at the enquiry counters

· whether their needs were met

· an overall rating of the service they received.

3.64 Staff told us the Customer Greeters were responsible for handing out the surveys and we observed this during our visits to both sites. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us some analysis had been done on the feedback provided by customers. The council gave us this analysis, which covered the period 1 – 30 September 2003. It showed the overall rating for the service provided in relation to HB and CTB enquiries was scored as adequate or better in 96% of cases.

3.65 The council told us it had not decided how best to report on the findings of the survey and therefore had not yet publicised the results to customers and staff. The council also told us the survey was ongoing at the time we were on site and the results had not been analysed to identify the aspects of the service that required improvement.

3.66 We believe the introduction of a customer exit survey was a positive step in finding out what customers wanted and whether the service delivered this. However, the information we obtained through BFI mystery shopper exercise, BFI customer exit survey and staff and stakeholder interviews indicated that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council needed to improve its customer services. For example, we found that:

· stakeholders and customers reported difficulties in contacting the Revenues and Benefits Service call centre

· customers experienced long waiting times at both enquiry counters

· decision notices sent to customers were confusing. We comment further on this area in the Overpayments section of this report.

3.67 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it had recognised the difficulties customers experienced when trying to access its Revenues and Benefits service through the enquiry counters. It aimed to address this problem through its Access for All programme, which included plans to introduce 6 one-stop shops across the borough, to improve customer access to all the services it provided.

3.68 The council told us the introduction of one-stop shops would replace the services provided by its enquiry counter at Lodge Road.

3.69 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council also told us its plans for one-stop shops were progressing more slowly than its plans for a corporate call centre, for which accommodation had already been found. However, it added that Members had approved funding for the first one-stop shop and this would result in the enquiry counter at Oldbury Council House being modernised and opened as one of the new outlets by March 2005.

3.70 Plans for the remaining one-stop shops were still being formulated, with the council looking for external partners to share the costs involved.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· fully implements the caller management system at both enquiry counters, to provide specific management information on volumes of callers and waiting times · ensures 80% of customers visiting its enquiry counters during opening hours: - without an appointment, are seen within 15 minutes of their arrival at the office by a person at least competent to deal with basic queries and able to allocate appointment times - requesting on-the-spot help, can, within 30 minutes of their arrival at the office have their enquiry resolved or see a competent benefits assessor, or person able to assist with more complicated problems such as queries regarding assessment and entitlement - are seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time by a person competent to conduct the interview · regularly monitors performance in respect of dealing with personal callers against targets and reports the results to Members and senior officers · publishes, on a quarterly basis, the performance achievements against targets for dealing with personal callers · ensures the range of leaflets specified in Performance Standards are made available at both enquiry counters, with records maintained that provide assurance that checks are being carried out and stocks of leaflets are re-ordered when necessary · analyses and acts upon the information from its customer exit surveys and makes the results available to senior officers and Members, and publishes the results · publicises the availability of private interview rooms to customers.

Dealing with correspondence

3.71 Performance Standards say a local authority should respond substantively to 80% of correspondence within 14 calendar days or less. It should also set a target to achieve this and monitor performance against the target.

3.72 All correspondence received for the Revenues and Benefits service was sorted into document types and a process type was allocated when the document was scanned on to the electronic data management system.

3.73 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it used the corporate target of 10 working days to respond to correspondence sent to the Revenues and Benefits service. Our analysis of requests for reconsideration and appeals showed this target was being met. However, there was no monitoring of performance.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council monitors and reports to Members and senior officers performance against the Performance Standard that 80% of correspondence be responded to substantively within 14 calendar days or less.

Effective training and development for customer service

3.74 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 the service is right first time

· ensure continuing high standards of customer service.

3.75 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· have an effective training and development programme for new and existing Customer Advisers

· have an effective training and development programme that incorporated generic customer service competencies

· have a specific job description for the Customer Adviser role, supported by key work objectives that were specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based

· ensure Customer Advisers received regular refresher training to build and keep up-to-date competencies to deliver an effective enquiry service to customers.

3.76 Although Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had a training and development programme for Customer Advisers, it was not effective in ensuring they were suitably trained to deal with customers making enquiries about their HB and CTB claims. For example, Customer Advisers had not received any training on the benefits IT system relating to overpayments, particularly the links between the benefits and overpayments screens and the sundry debtor system. Staff told us this had resulted in customers being told there were no overpayments outstanding against them, when in fact there were.

3.77 This issue was compounded because overpayment decision notices were not available on the benefits IT system for Customer Advisers to view. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it did not consider it necessary for Customer Advisers to be able to view these overpayment decision notices. This was because they had access to all of the benefits screens that showed benefit entitlement and the income used in the assessment that led to overpayments being created.

3.78 We found that Customer Advisers had not been trained to understand or use the overpayment screens on the benefits IT system, so sight of decision notices would have helped them to understand and deal more effectively with this type of enquiry from customers.

3.79 As part of a wider Corporate Development Plan, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had delivered All for One training to all staff in the Revenues and Benefits service. This training aimed to:

· provide staff with a greater awareness of customer service issues

· identify customer service training needs and build them into Personal Performance Development Plans.

3.80 The training and development programme for new and existing Customer Advisers in the Revenues and Benefits service did not identify or include generic customer service competencies to help improve customer service.

3.81 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council launched a new Personal Performance and Development scheme for all staff in April 2002. However, as the Revenues and Benefits service was implementing its modernisation project at the same time as the new Personal Performance and Development scheme was launched, we were told a decision had been taken to only conduct very basic Personal Performance and Development discussions with Customer Advisers.

3.82 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council recognised the decision to conduct limited Personal Performance and Development discussions had an adverse impact in identifying skill gaps within Customer Services, particularly in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre where new staff had been employed. This decision was compounded by:

· no system of management checking

· the absence of any customer services targets and monitoring system to measure performance

· a lack of management information.

3.83 During the on-site phase of our inspection Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was in the process of carrying out full Personal Performance and Development reviews for all Customer Services’ staff, and told us it would be issuing them with personal objectives that could be related back to corporate objectives.

3.84 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it planned to introduce a new training module for Revenues and Benefits service call centre staff in December 2003. This would:

· set out the individual elements needed to deliver a consistently good service

· promote professionalism

· introduce standards and targets for the development of Customer Advisers

· introduce monitoring procedures to establish the effectiveness of the service provided by the Revenues and Benefits service call centre.

3.85 We examined this training module and considered it to be a positive step forward in promoting key customer service competencies. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it believed this training would result in the delivery of a better service for customers contacting the Revenues and Benefits service call centre.

3.86 Staff told us training on the new IT systems had been insufficient, particularly in the area of overpayments. We comment on this further in the Overpayments section of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· develops an effective training and development programme for new and existing Customer Advisers, that incorporates generic customer service competencies · introduces a specific job description for the Customer Adviser role supported by key work objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based.

Clear, informative decision notices

3.87 Decision notices to customers and other affected persons 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.

3.88 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because:

· decision notices sent to customers notifying them of overpayments did not comply with Schedule 6 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.

3.89 We compared a range of decision notices that had been generated from the benefits IT system, against Schedule 6 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992. We found decision notices notifying customers of an HB and CTB benefit award contained all the information required.

3.90 However, decision notices sent to customers informing them of an overpayment did not include the fact there was a recoverable overpayment, or provide any information stating why it was recoverable.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council ensures all decision notices comply with Schedule 6 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.

Accessible, quality service for customers with specific needs

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

3.92 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.

3.93 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it:

· was unable to provide evidence it had assessed its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999

· had not established procedures to ensure customers were provided with information in a format suitable to them as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999

· had not provided textphone facilities in the Revenues and Benefits service call centre for customers with speech and hearing difficulties

· had no formal process in place to arrange for a British Sign Language interview within 3 days of request

· had no process in place to provide information leaflets and forms in suitable formats, including large print and audio cassette

· had no process in place to bring the service up to meet Standard if any deficiencies in the service were identified as a result of checks or complaints

· had not analysed the communication needs of ethnic minority groups in the borough

· did not undertake an annual review of the availability and usage of facilities for the disabled

· had not consulted with customer representative groups to assess the effectiveness of the service.

3.94 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it recognised its performance in this area was weak. However, it confirmed both enquiry counters were accessible to disabled customers. It also referred to its corporate bilingual scheme, which identified staff with multi-lingual skills. These staff could be contacted to provide an interpreting service in relation to the main ethnic minority languages used in the borough.

Disability

3.95 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that those responsible for public buildings take 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.

3.96 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was unable to provide us with evidence that a full assessment had been carried out on both enquiry counters. We were unable therefore to measure its compliance in this area.

Customer interaction in a suitable format

3.97 A council should ensure it meets its legal duty by providing information in a format that is accessible to disabled people. A council should adapt the way it corresponds with customers by ensuring it complies with requests for information from customers in a format suitable for their needs.

3.98 In addition services need to be provided in an accessible way for customers whose first language is not English.

3.99 Claim forms, letters and leaflets were not available in Braille, large print, or on audio cassette. The Revenues and Benefits service call centre did not provide a textphone facility. However, loop systems for the deaf and hard of hearing were fitted in both enquiry counters. Staff told us some Revenues and Benefits service staff could speak another language and were able to assist with interpretation at the enquiry counters. The corporate bilingual scheme also provided details of all council employees who could provide an interpreting service. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council also subscribed to, and used, an external interpretation service for customers when its own bilingual scheme could not help.

3.100 One Customer Adviser at Oldbury Council House was qualified in British Sign Language, but there was no information at the enquiry counter about the availability of this service. Lodge Road had access to an employee in the Welfare Rights Service, who was qualified in British Sign Language. However, no formal process or agreement was in place to inform Customer Advisers of how to make use of this service.

3.101 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it had a race equality scheme but it had not assessed the needs of ethnic minority customers in the area. We make a recommendation about this in the Strategic Management section of this report.

Accessibility

3.102 Public enquiry offices need to be readily accessible by public transport from large parts of a local authority’s area. In addition the needs of customers living in parts of the local authority which do not have regular public transport links to the Revenues and Benefits service need to be addressed.

3.103 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us it had not carried out a survey of the borough’s residents, to assess whether both enquiry counters were easily accessible to all customers by public transport. However, it said both enquiry counters were well served by public transport, including buses, rail and metro. Council tenants with arrears and benefit related issues could also go to one of 6 local neighbourhood offices where Housing Direct Arrears teams had been trained to check the completion of claim forms for accuracy and verify evidence of identity.

3.104 Home visits were provided for customers who were unable to get to the office by public transport by reason of age, ill health or disability. The availability of this service was not advertised on the claim form or at the enquiry counters.

Consultation with customer representative groups

3.105 An authority should consult with customer representative groups, including Citizens Advice, disability and ethnic minority groups. Local authorities should inform the customer representative groups of the services they provide and engage them in assessing the effectiveness of the service offered.

3.106 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council did not formally consult with customer representative groups on the effectiveness of the services it provided, but it was aware of the major concerns identified by these groups and meetings had taken place to discuss the issues causing concern.

3.107 We met with representatives from Citizens Advice and the Welfare Rights Service, who told us their involvement with the Revenues and Benefits service had increased through regular meetings, but there was still scope for improvement. The poor service of the Revenues and Benefits service call centre and the length of time taken to process HB and CTB claims were the major causes for complaint.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council assesses its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, and takes any action necessary to meet these standards.

 

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· ensures it: - provides textphone facilities for customers who call the Revenues and Benefits service call centre - introduces a formal process to arrange for a British Sign Language interview within 3 days of request - provides information leaflets and forms in suitable formats, including large print and audio cassette · ensures customers are aware of the availability of forms, letters and leaflets in other formats · introduces a process to bring the service up to meet Standard if any deficiencies in the service are identified as a result of checks or complaints · carries out an annual review of the availability and usage of facilities for the disabled · consults with customer representative groups, to assess the effectiveness of the service provided · analyses the results of the consultation and develops an action plan to improve the service.

Accessible, quality service for those in work

3.108 Working people may have limited opportunities to contact the local authority. It is important that 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.

3.109 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it:

· had not completed a formal assessment of whether the service met the needs of customers who work

· was unable to produce monitoring evidence that systems were working to act on the information received from Jobcentre Plus to make extended payments and to fast-track claims.

3.110 However, we did see evidence when sampling cases that the benefits IT system automatically produced letters inviting a reclaim when a notification had been received that Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA(IB)) had ceased. A new claim form was enclosed with this letter when it was issued to the customer.

3.111 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had procedures to act on information received from Jobcentre Plus to make extended payments or fast-track claims. However, since the implementation of the new benefits IT system in April 2003, it had lost the reporting facility it had previously used to monitor its performance in this area. The council told us it was developing this reporting facility, but did not yet have an implementation date.

3.112 The difficulties experienced by customers attempting to contact the Revenues and Benefits service call centre and the long waiting times at both enquiry counters could affect customers in work more than other customers. This was because Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council did not provide access to its Revenues and Benefits service outside its normal opening hours.

3.113 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council provided a certificate of earnings form with all its new and renewal claim forms. This form asked the employer for a breakdown of the last 5 wage payments for weekly paid employees, or the last 2 salary payments for monthly or 4-weekly paid employees. The form was not accepted if the employer had not signed and then authenticated it with the company’s official stamp.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· assesses the access needs of customers who work and develops an action plan to ensure any shortfalls are addressed · introduces a monitoring system to measure its effectiveness in acting on the information received from Jobcentre Plus to make extended payments and to fast-track claims.

Encouraging benefit take-up, reducing poverty

3.114 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.

3.115 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because:

· it did not have a strategy for benefit take-up

· information was not targeted at particular groups

· there had been no initiatives for joint working with internal or external stakeholders, including the Department

· information leaflets were not available at either of the enquiry counters advertising the availability of HB and CTB to tenants on low incomes, or telling customers about extended payments or fast-tracking.

3.116 However, we were pleased to see that:

· when a tenant accepted a new council tenancy, the agreement advised them of the availability of HB and CTB

· the telephone number of the Revenues and Benefits service call centre was included with each Council Tax bill.

3.117 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council should also consider expanding its Revenues and Benefits service website to provide more information to residents, including targeting specific groups, about the type of benefits that are available and the organisations that can help customers decide whether they have any entitlement to benefit. The council should also use the information available to it from its benefits IT system to identify areas of low benefit take-up.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council:

· 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 tenants on low incomes at both enquiry counters and provides information leaflets about extended payments or fast-tracking · expands its website to support its strategy of encouraging benefit take-up.

Addressing complaints about the service effectively

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

3.119 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not have procedures in place to identify and register all complaints received about its Revenues and Benefits service.

3.120 The corporate Customer Relations team records and monitors all formal complaints, including those about the Revenues and Benefits service, through the Financial Services Compliments, Complaints and Enquiries procedure. Once registered, complaints were forwarded to the Revenues and Benefits service so that it could investigate the complaint and make a formal response. The Revenues and Benefits service then copied its findings and reply to the corporate Customer Relations team.

3.121 The Financial Services Compliments, Complaints and Enquiries procedure was supported in the Revenues and Benefits service by a procedural guide, advising staff how they should deal with complaints received through this procedure.

3.122 However, these documents did not provide advice or guidance on the action to take if a complaint was received directly from a customer, or by means other than the Financial Services Compliments, Complaints and Enquiries procedure. For example, staff told us customers frequently complained to them about:

· the difficulties they experienced in trying to get through to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre

· waiting times at enquiry counters

· decision notices they could not understand

· errors made by assessment staff in calculating their benefit.

3.123 Staff told us they dealt with these complaints informally, and were usually successful in placating customers by resolving any problems. They only informed customers of the formal complaint procedure if they remained dissatisfied. The complaint process was therefore flawed, because it did not capture important information about the problems customers experienced with the service.

3.124 As a result management information reports provided to senior officers and Members had not captured all complaints made about the Revenues and Benefits service.

3.125 Analysis of complaints can be a useful tool. It can identify substantial weaknesses in processes and inform training needs. It can also provide information on the current level of performance.

Corporate complaints procedure

3.126 The Financial Services complaints procedure involved 2 stages:

· to respond with a written reply to the customer within 15 working days (20 days for 2002/03)

· if the customer was unhappy with the written response, the second stage of the process provided the customer with a further opportunity to put their complaint to a panel of 3 council representatives, who had not previously been involved with the case.

3.127 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us if the second stage did not resolve the matter, customers were given advice about how to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

3.128 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council provided details of the complaints handled through its Financial Services complaints procedure for 2002/03 and the first quarter of 2003/04. Details of these complaints are shown at Figure 3.5.

Fig. 3.5: Financial Services complaints received – 2002/03 – first quarter 2003/04
Year	Total number of Financial Services complaints received by the corporate Customer Relations team	Revenues and Benefits service related complaints
		Number	% of all complaints
2002/03	315	306	97
First quarter 2003/04	121	115	95

Source: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

3.129 Of the 115 Revenues and Benefits service related complaints received in the first quarter of 2003/04, 79 (69%) concerned benefits.

3.130 The corporate Customer Relations team also kept a record of the type of complaint and whether it had been resolved within the target of 15 working days for 2003/04. The results were:

· in 2002/03, 89% of complaints had been answered within the target of 20 working days

· in the first quarter of 2003/04, 93% of complaints had been answered within the target of 15 working days.

3.131 Although not recorded as complaints, the corporate Customer Relations team reported that in 2002/03 it dealt with over 1,200 customers who could not get through to the Revenues and Benefits service call centre. Figure 3.3 showed that, for the period April - 26 November 2003, it had already received 1,734 calls, an increase of 45% over the total for the previous financial year. In the Financial Services complaint procedure report for the first quarter of 2003/04, the corporate Customer Relations team commented that in dealing with these calls, it could be argued that this support prevented more complaints being registered.

3.132 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had dealt with 7 complaints about the Revenues and Benefits service that had been made to the Local Government Ombudsman since April 2002. At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection, 4 of these complaints had been settled locally and the Local Government Ombudsman was still investigating the remaining 3.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council reviews its current procedures to ensure it identifies and registers all complaints about its Revenues and Benefits service.

Dealing with requests for reconsiderations and appeal referrals effectively

3.133 Local authorities need to ensure that:

· appeals and requests for reconsiderations 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 undertaken to ensure that any wider or common failures indicated are addressed.

3.134 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not implement decisions from the Appeals Service within 4 calendar weeks.

3.135 However, it did have a number of strengths in this area because it had:

· systems and procedures in place that complied with the guidance set out in the Department’s circulars A11/2001 and A18/2001

· identified individuals with responsibility for handling queries, disputes, requests for reconsideration and appeal referrals

· ensured decision notices sent to customers had standard wording included, advising them of their rights to reconsideration and appeal

· systems in place to monitor the standard of an appeal submission to ensure it was correct in law, and met the format required by the Appeals Service

· trained and experienced staff available to represent local authority cases at tribunal hearings

· maintained up-to-date management information on the progress of reconsiderations and appeals.

3.136 We examined 12 appeal cases and found the Appeals Service had allowed 2. In these 2 cases it took Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 12 and 17 weeks respectively to reassess the benefit in line with the Appeals Service decision.

Recommendations

We recommend that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council implements decisions made by the Appeals Service within 4 calendar weeks.

Previous
Next