User focus
4.1 Councils should aim to:
- reduce barriers to work, particularly in relation to benefits and rent policy
- deliver modern, efficient and secure customer-focused public services, and empower individuals to influence them
- support vulnerable people and tackle all forms of social exclusion, including bad housing, homelessness, poverty, crime and poor health
- ensure that customers are not deterred from claiming because the Benefits service does not address their particular needs
- make sure that relationships with stakeholders support good customer service while reducing administrative costs and fraud and error
- deal with appeals and complaints quickly and effectively.
4.2 The council did not achieve Standard in the 3 performance measures. It met 4 of the 12 enablers for User focus.
Take-up
4.3 Councils have a responsibility to actively encourage the take up of benefits and associated initiatives should be part of a wider anti-poverty strategy.
Performance enablers
4.4 Bath and North East Somerset Council met neither of the enablers.
4.5 The council had updated its Benefit Maximisation in Bath and North East Somerset strategy in 2005. Its aims were to:
- increase general awareness of the Benefit system to all, especially the elderly, disabled and those from ethnic groups
- aim to improve accessibility to the services offered in a co-ordinated way along with other related stakeholders
- encourage greater take-up of the benefits and related services (e.g. energy grants, mobility schemes)
- review the outcomes to ensure future actions are meeting the needs of the community.
4.6 The council’s take-up activities did not go beyond the raising of basic awareness of benefits. The council had not carried out any targeted take-up campaigns either on its own or in partnership with other stakeholders. It only undertook take-up activity during the annual Council Tax billing exercise when leaflets were issued with bills and advertisements were run on local radio stations.
4.7 The council needs to develop its strategy so that it covers all aspects of take-up including:
- ensuring that customers who may be eligible for benefit are encouraged to make claims
- measuring its success in encouraging claims to benefit
- targeting those customers in the community that require further assistance.
Customer service
4.8 This section reports on the council’s performance in delivering accessible services to all its customers.
Performance enablers
Accessibility
4.9 Bath and North East Somerset Council met one enabler (E41) of the 2 enablers.
4.10 Access for personal callers with benefit enquiries was provided for more than 40 hours a week at all 3 of the council’s customer service outlets. This included Saturday morning opening at the Guildhall in Bath and the office in Midsomer Norton.
4.11 We were concerned that the availability of home visits for customers who might face difficulties contacting the Benefits service was poorly advertised and details of this facility were not included on the claim form.
4.12 A review of service provision against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995 and 1999) had been undertaken and improvements identified, costed and authorised for the main customer service outlet at the Guildhall. For example, in February 2006 the council had installed a low height counter for wheelchair users.
4.13 The office in Midsomer Norton also provided good access for customers with disabilities but we were concerned that the office in Keynsham still had significant failings including:
- poor access for wheelchair users
- inadequate information and directional signs
- no hearing enhancement system fitted at reception.
4.14 We were told there were plans to relocate to a new office in the centre of Keynsham, which would address these deficiencies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX.
4.15 The level of customer satisfaction with the Benefits service was measured every 6 months and included canvassing the views of personal and telephone callers and customers with written enquiries. The results were reported to senior managers and analysed to identify where improvements to the service could be made. However, landlords and organisations representing customers were not canvassed so opportunities to react to their views about the quality of the service were missed.
4.16 The council had developed a Race Equality Scheme and a Race Equality Action Plan and all Benefits staff had received diversity awareness training in 2005. However, the Benefits service had not conducted a review of service provision for ethnic minority groups in the area.
4.17 Decision letters, including overpayment decisions were issued promptly to customers and third parties. These were automated letters produced by the Benefits IT system and details were presented clearly without jargon. Their prompt issue was undermined by the length of time the council was taking to make decisions.
Dealing with enquiries
4.18 Bath and North East Somerset Council met neither of the 2 enablers.
4.19 The council was developing a Customer Service Charter, which explained its commitment to provide ‘easy access to quality services, delivered fairly, courteously and responsively’. This included a corporate target to resolve 80% of enquiries at the first point of contact or deal with customers within 6 minutes of them entering a council office.
4.20 We found that managers and staff were unclear about targets for waiting times for benefits customers and these varied between the 3 sites from 3 to 5 minutes. In addition, staff had not been given individual targets for seeing customers and waiting times were only monitored at 2 of the sites. No information was provided to customers about the level of service they might expect or how long they might wait to be seen.
4.21 Customers wanting to contact the Benefits service by telephone faced particular difficulties. The council had established from its customer surveys that 78% of its customers preferred to use the telephone to contact the Benefits service. To meet this demand it had invested in an automated information line for handling simple enquiries in March 2005. This number was advertised on information leaflets and was charged at local call rates. However, it was not possible to speak to a member of the Benefits service when using this line so customers who needed individual advice or guidance were required to ring back on a different number.
4.22 We were told that the staff resource deployed to deal with these calls was insufficient and that significant but unknown numbers of customers had been unable to contact the Benefits service by telephone. Customer complaints and low levels of customer satisfaction with the telephone service had forced the council to react and in January 2006, a new system for handling calls was being piloted. This new method of working, with increased advertising of the direct dial number, and more staff being made available to handle calls, had led to a dramatic increase in the number of calls answered by Revenues and Benefits staff. The results are shown in Figure 4.1.
| Date | Total calls (excluding abandoned calls) |
Calls to information line |
Calls answered by Revenues and Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 2005 | 10,018 | 6,363 | 3,655 |
| December 2005 | 7,156 | 4,358 | 2,798 |
| January 2006 | 12,738 | 5,034 | 7,704 |
Source: Bath and North East Somerset Council
4.23 Problems contacting the service by telephone can deter vulnerable customers from claiming benefit and existing customers from reporting changes in their circumstances. It is essential that customers are not prevented from contacting the service by their preferred method.
4.24 The council provided an over-the-counter service for customers presenting completed claim forms and evidence at all 3 customer service outlets. This service was advertised on leaflets and claim forms and customers were encouraged to bring documents into the office rather than sending them in through the post. Receipts were issued for documents and evidence received over the counter and customers were provided with a list of additional evidence required to support their application, if required. Customers could also make an appointment to see a Benefits processor at the Guildhall if they needed help with their application.
4.25 However, our sampling identified weaknesses with the standard of verification checking which are covered in more detail in Compliance with the Verification Framework or to equivalent standard. We also concluded that the service at the Guildhall in particular, could be improved by increased access to document image scanners and by increasing levels of privacy for customers at the counter so they are not deterred from discussing the details of their claim.
Partnership working
4.26 Bath and North East Somerset Council met one enabler (E44) of the 3 enablers.
4.27 The council had service level agreements that met the requirements of the relevant national models with Jobcentre Plus and The Rent Service. Although the council met quarterly and had nominated contact points with these organisations, there were no formal procedures in place to review or monitor performance against the agreements. These agreements were informally monitored through quarterly liaison meetings and nominated contact points.
4.28 Although the council had not signed a service level agreement with The Pension Service, liaison on a local level was effective with day-to-day issues dealt with through contact points and quarterly meetings. We were told that the council did not agree with some of the requirements of the national agreement but the local Pension Service had no scope to amend it.
4.29 Although, the council’s housing stock was transferred to a Registered Social Landlord in 1998, a service level agreement had not been finalised by the time of our on-site visit in February 2006.
4.30 The council attended an annual Landlords Expo and had quarterly meetings with Citizen Advice. There were no formalised or documented working arrangements with any other organisations.
Appeals and complaints
4.31 When notified of the decisions on their claims to benefit, customers may ask councils to:
- explain the reasons for the decision
- reconsider the decision or revise it
- submit an appeal against the decision to The Appeals Service.
4.32 Councils should ensure that such requests are dealt with promptly by appropriately skilled members of staff, that appeals are submitted to the Appeals Service within the prescribed time limits and that the decisions of tribunals are implemented quickly.
4.33 When they receive complaints councils need to:
- deal with complaints promptly and ensure the complainant is given an informative explanation and if appropriate, an apology and rectification
- resolve disputes as quickly as possible
- use management information to inform and improve the effectiveness of the handling of disputes and appeals
- undertake analysis to identify trends and address common failures.
Performance measures
4.34 Figure 4.2 shows the council’s poor performance against performance measures for requests for reconsiderations and appeals.
| Performance measure |
Description | Standard | Performance 3rd Quarter 2005/06 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PM 17 | % of applications for reconsideration/revision actioned and notified within 4 weeks | 65% | 12% |
| PM 18 | % of appeals submitted to the Appeals Service in 4 weeks | 65% | 0% |
| PM 19 | % of appeals submitted to the Appeals Service (including those in PM18) in 3 months | 95% | 0% |
Source: Bath and North East Somerset Council
4.35 For the quarter ending December 2005, the council cleared 25 requests for reconsideration or review. Only 3 of these (12%) had been actioned and notified within 4 weeks of receipt. This is poor performance and significantly below the Standard of 65%.
4.36 We were told that the number of requests for reconsideration or review had continued to increase. For example in January 2006 although the council had received 34 new requests it had only actioned 18. In February 2006, the council had 186 requests for reconsideration or review outstanding. The oldest of these had been received in July 2005.
4.37 For the quarter ending December 2005, the council cleared only one appeal. In February 2006, it had 18 outstanding appeals, the oldest of which was received in February 2005.
4.38 We were concerned about this poor performance and the impact of such long delays on the customer. (See Recommendation 13.)
4.39 Whilst we were on-site in February 2006, the council acknowledged its poor performance in this area and assigned 2 additional staff to clear the backlog. Targets had been set to clear all outstanding reconsiderations and reviews by the end of March 2006 and all appeals by the end of April 2006.
Performance enablers
Appeals
4.40 Bath and North East Somerset Council met both enablers.
4.41 The council had designated officers for handling disputes, applications for reconsideration and appeals. The Appeals Officer had 2 years experience in preparing and presenting appeals and used appropriate guidance to ensure they were correct in law and complied with the requirements of The Appeals Service.
4.42 The Appeals Officer had provided training to another council on the preparation and submission of appeals and that this had resulted in positive feedback from The Appeals Service.
4.43 The council implemented decisions from The Appeals Service on the next working day following the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. However, the positive effect of this action was seriously undermined by long delays in submitting appeals to The Appeals Service.
Complaints
4.44 Bath and North East Somerset Council did not meet the enabler.
4.45 The council had a dedicated complaints leaflet and form. It had corporate targets to acknowledge the receipt of complaints within 5 days and respond within 20 days. However, we were unable to establish accurate performance in this area, as records of complaints were not comprehensive.
4.46 The Customer Services Manager dealt with the majority of complaints about the Benefits service. An electronic record of progress was maintained and a response issued. We were told that as the majority of complaints were responded to within 5 days an acknowledgement was not issued.
4.47 However, the council was unable to fully substantiate this, or provide details of performance as it failed to collect all the relevant information. We examined a weekly summary of 11 complaints actioned by the Customer Services Manager and found that in one the date of response was missing. In another case although records showed the complaint was partially upheld, the outcome of a meeting with the customer was not recorded.
4.48 Complaints entering the Benefits service from MPs, or the Chief Executive’s Office were dealt with by a Strategic Manager. However, no records were kept and details of these cases were not passed to the Customer Services Manager.
4.49 Although the weekly summary of complaints was circulated to Team Leaders, there was no formal process to analyse the reasons for complaints to inform improvements to the service.