An inspectorate of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Report

Charter Mark - Awarded for excellence

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 Strategic Management.

3.1 Customer service is important and local authorities should aim to:

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 Harrow was not at Standard in this element because it had a separate claim form for renewal claims and did not make its claim forms freely available at the Financial and Exchequer services reception area or at any of the council’s other enquiry points. To ensure that customers took away the correct claim form, claim forms were only available upon request from a Customer Advisor. However, it issued regular supplies of forms to Housing Management and some Registered Social Landlords who had requested a supply.

3.4 London Borough of Harrow had revised its claim forms in response to a recommendation in our first report and used the following 4 claim forms for new claims:

3.5 There were 2 renewal forms available for each of the above types of claim. One for customers in receipt of IS or JSA(IB) and one non-IS or JSA(IB) customers. These forms mirrored the design of the claim forms issued for new claims. All the claim forms had some very good features and followed the design of BFI’s model claim form with:

3.6 Each form had two parts. Part A was a single page that customers were asked to complete and return immediately to register their claim. Customers were asked to complete and return Part B of the form, with all the evidence requested on the claim form, within 4 weeks of part A being returned.

3.7 London Borough of Harrow told us that the claim forms were being redesigned again and the new forms would not include the 2-stage claim process. Staff told us that customers had been confused by this process and had regularly returned both parts of the form at the same time, but in separate envelopes and without all the necessary evidence.

3.8 Staff told us that claim forms were not available in the reception area of Financial and Exchequer services or at any of the council’s reception points because:

3.9 London Borough of Harrow would achieve Standard in this element if it:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

·ceases to use separate renewal claim forms

·ensures that claim forms are available in the Financial and Exchequer services reception area and all council enquiry points.

Timely, helpful response to public enquiries

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

3.11 London Borough of Harrow was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

3.12 In 2002/03 London Borough of Harrow reviewed its front line services in a cross-cutting Best Value Service Review. The review was called First Contact and the lead officer was the Head of Financial and Exchequer services. The review considered the options for the future of customer contact at the authority by:

3.13 The review also considered the requirements for meeting the
e-government targets.

3.14 Consultation with Members, staff, unions and customer focus groups identified what the likely outcomes of improved performance would be, these were:

3.15 The review resulted in a number of recommendations to improve the council’s telephone system and enquiry points, with a 3-stage process for delivering these. The first stage of the process was the replacement of the council’s telephone system with a call management system with the intention of eventually setting up a telephone call centre. The second and third stages of the process involved the eventual evolution to a one-stop shop enquiry service. While we were on-site Members agreed additional resources for 2003/04 to replace the council’s telephone system.

3.16 The Support Services Section had 2 teams, a Customer Advisor Team that provided advice at the Financial and Exchequer services reception and a Scanning and Indexing Team that also provided a post opening service 3.17 All personal callers to the authority with benefit or Council Tax enquiries were seen by the Customer Advisor Team. Customer Advisors were able to deal with callers who required help with completing claim forms, verifying evidence to support claims for benefit and answering detailed enquiries on the progress of individual claims. The team did not take telephone calls from customers as these were directed through to the Assessment Team.

3.18 Financial and Exchequer services was awarded a Charter Mark in December 2001 for its customer service.

Telephone service

3.19 Telephone lines to the Benefits section were open from 08.30 – 17.00 each day, except Wednesdays when the lines were closed to customers. Telephone access on Wednesdays was withdrawn in June 2002, for a temporary period, to allow Benefit Assessors uninterrupted time to clear the backlog of claims.

3.20 There was a dedicated telephone number for customers calling the Benefits section with 21 lines available for benefit staff to answer calls. Staff told us that a maximum of only 3 of these lines was open at any one time. While we were on-site we were provided with internal records that indicated that there was regularly less than 3 lines open for customers to call. Senior officers told us that this was because of staff sickness, holidays or training.

3.21 London Borough of Harrow had a local target to answer telephone calls within 3 rings and told us that it was achieving this although there was no evidence that any monitoring had been undertaken. As all the telephone handsets were set to silence, it was not possible for us to observe whether the 3-ring target was being met. Reports provided to the Head of Financial and Exchequer services indicated that this target was being regularly achieved. We asked what management information reports were available from the council’s switchboard system and were told that the Benefits section had never asked for any reports to be provided to them.

3.22 We were provided with management information from the council’s telephone system about the service provided by benefit staff. Our analysis of the reports indicated that:

3.23 Staff told us that they left the telephones off the hook so they had time to type up the notes of the previous call on the document image processing system.

3.24 As the telephone lines were closed on Wednesdays, customers calling on that day heard a pre-recorded message informing them that the office and reception was closed and that they should contact the council later in the week. There was no facility for customers to leave a message and the recorded message made no mention of the council’s separate fraud hotline number.

3.25 We telephoned the Benefits section on 19 separate occasions over a 2-week period. Of these calls:

3.26 Citizens Advice Bureau, Age Concern, Housing Advice Centre all told us that their customers had complained to them about the telephone service. All of these organisations told us that they had problems contacting the Benefits section. Although they had direct dial telephone numbers that they could use, their calls were connected to an answer phone. Senior officers told us that these organisations understood that when they began to leave a message their call would normally be answered.

3.27 London Borough of Harrow provided e-mail addresses as an alternative method for customers to make contact and records were kept of its use.

3.28 To achieve Standard in answering telephone calls, London Borough of Harrow should:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

·reviews its telephone service to ensure that telephone lines are open to customers a minimum of 36 hours a week

·introduces formal procedures, targets and monitoring for the handling of telephone calls

·ensures that 80% of all telephone calls to the Benefits section are answered within 10 rings.

Customer reception points

3.29 The London Borough of Harrow had one reception point for HB and CTB customers. This was located in the Financial and Exchequer services building at the Civic Centre in Harrow. Customer Advisor Team staff provided advice at this reception point and were trained to give advice on HB and CTB, Council Tax and non-domestic rates. The authority did not provide advice or information for HB and CTB customers at any of its other reception points.

3.30 The Customer Advisor Team had 7 full-time Customer Advisors, a Team Leader and a Clerical Assistant who helped with the photocopying of supporting documents that customers brought to reception. On Wednesdays, when the reception was closed to the public, some of the Customer Advisors helped with the assessment of HB and CTB claims.

3.31 The Financial and Exchequer services reception area had seating for approximately 30 customers and had 7 interview points. The reception area did not have adequate signage for customers to tell them about the queuing system. While we were on-site we observed the queuing system in operation. On arrival a customer would take up one of 30 seats in the reception area. When the customer at the front of the queue was called to an interview point, the other customers would move around the remaining seats until it was their turn to be seen.

3.32 London Borough of Harrow had an electronic ticket based system which it used to count the number of customers who visited reception, the number of reception points open and the length of time that a customer enquiry took. It did not use the electronic ticket system to manage the queue of customers. The information from the electronic ticket system showed that the closure of the reception area on Wednesdays had not reduced the number of callers who were visiting the offices each week.

3.33 The targets in the Financial and Exchequer services service plan for 2002/03 for dealing with customers calling at reception were:

3.34 Staff told us that these targets and the results of any monitoring were displayed in the Financial and Exchequer services reception area. However, we found no evidence of this. Performance was reported to the Head of Financial and Exchequer services every month. Average waiting times of 20 minutes were reported in November 2002. In January 2003, the average waiting time was reported to be 11 minutes.

3.35 London Borough of Harrow did not properly monitor customer waiting times. In place of any monitoring, twice a day the Clerical Assistant would observe the time of arrival of the last customer in the queue and the time that the customer was seen by one of the Customer Advisors. The Clerical Assistant then calculated the waiting time. Our analysis of London Borough of Harrow’s own management information on waiting times for the period
10 November to 13 February 2003 showed that the average waiting time had been 16.5 minutes.

3.36 The Benefits section did not provide staff to assist at the reception when Customer Advisors were on holiday, sick or on a training course. Staff told us that normally there were not enough Customer Advisors to cover all of the reception points. Analysis of the authority’s own management information showed that there was on average only 5 of the 7 reception points open at any one time.

3.37 Customer Advisors followed written guidance and verified documents provided with the claim form and checked to confirm that the forms were signed. They did not check claim forms to ensure that all the relevant questions had been answered or always ask the customer to provide any missing documents. The failure to request any missing documents, when the claim form was handed in at reception, resulted in delays in processing the benefit claim. We discuss this later in Processing of Claims.

3.38 Customers requiring an appointment were able to make one to see a Customer Advisor at an agreed time. The record of appointments contained the following information:

3.39 London Borough of Harrow did not keep a record of the date that the appointment was requested. Without this information it was unable to monitor whether appointments were allocated within 14 days of the request being made. This is a requirement of Performance Standards.

3.40 Customers were also able to book appointments by telephone but the number of appointments available was restricted to 4 a day. London Borough of Harrow was not able to confirm whether 80% of customers arriving for a pre-arranged appointment were seen within the Standard of 15 minutes or its own target of 30 minutes because it did not monitor waiting times. We noted that customers arriving for an appointment either had to interrupt at one of reception points or join the queue to let staff know that they were waiting.

3.41 Private interview facilities were available, but not well publicised. We found one poster in the reception area informing customers of this facility, but it was not prominently displayed.

3.42 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX 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 X

3.43 To achieve Standard, an authority should produce and hold a stock of clearly advertised HB and CTB leaflets covering:

3.44 The range of information leaflets produced and made available by London Borough of Harrow was very limited. The only leaflets in use were:

3.45 While we were on-site we observed that none of these leaflets were freely available to the customers in the reception area of Financial and Exchequer services. The leaflets that were available were held on the office side of the counter and customers had to queue to obtain a leaflet. Staff told us that they had been told not to display the appeal and complaints leaflets and that the Rent Allowance leaflet was not available because it was being reviewed. Senior officers confirmed that this was the case.

3.46 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.

3.47 In addition to the survey required for the Best Value Performance Indicator in 2000/01, London Borough of Harrow had carried out 3 customer surveys. The additional surveys were carried out during May, August and November 2002 when the views of customers were sought on:

3.48 Staff told us that the completed surveys had been retained but the results had not been analysed to identify improvements to the service and senior officers could not tell us when they planned to analyse the results.

3.49 To achieve Standard in dealing with customers who call at the Financial and Exchequer services reception, London Borough of Harrow should:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

·ensures that the Financial and Exchequer services reception is open and staffed a minimum of 36 hours each week

·monitors its performance to ensure that it sees customers arriving at Financial and Exchequer services reception within 15 minutes of their arrival

·reports the results of monitoring to senior officers and Members

·introduces procedures to ensure that customers are provided with confirmation at Financial and Exchequer services reception of what verification documentation they need to provide before their claim can be decided

·introduces procedures to ensure that appointments are allocated within 14 days of the request

·introduces procedures to ensure that 80% of customers arriving for an appointment are seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time

·ensures that sufficient stocks of the leaflets specified in the Standard are made available in the Financial and Exchequer services reception area and that an annual check on the availability of these leaflets is completed and recorded

·analyses the data from customer surveys and identifies areas for improvement

·publishes the results of customer surveys.

Dealing with correspondence

3.50 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.

3.51 All correspondence received for the Benefits section was sorted into document types and then allocated with a process type and an automatic priority rating by the document image processing system.

3.52 The service plan for Financial and Exchequer services did not include a target for responding to correspondence from customers and there was no monitoring of performance. Our analysis of requests for reconsideration and appeals found that there were long delays in responding to correspondence from customers. Our sample of requests for reconsideration and appeals found correspondence received in November 2002 which had not received a response.

3.53 To achieve Standard in this element, London Borough of Harrow should:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

·introduces a target for responding substantively to 80% of written correspondence within 14 calendar days

·reports performance against this target to senior officers.

Effective training and development for customer service

3.54 It is important that staff should be equipped to deliver good customer service. Training and development should be provided that will ensure:

3.55 To achieve Standard an authority should:

3.56 London Borough of Harrow was at Standard in this element because it had a training and development programme for staff who dealt with the public and training was delivered to new and existing staff that enabled them to deal with most enquiries.

3.57 Customer Advisors told us that they had received the necessary training to do their jobs, although they felt that a refresher course on welfare benefits would have helped them to answer more questions from customers. They also told us that they had received regular ongoing training on HB and CTB, with advice on changes to legislation and procedures normally being discussed at team meetings and then followed up by written guidance.3.5 We have covered training and development of staff in more detail within the Strategic Management section of this report.

Clear, informative decision letters

3.59 Letters 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.

3.60 London Borough of Harrow was at Standard in this element.

3.61 In our first report we recommended that the authority reviewed the content of its decision letters to ensure that they fully complied with Schedule 6 of the Housing Benefit (General)Regulations 1987 and the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.

3.62 We compared a range of decision letters, that were generated from the benefits IT system, against Schedule 6 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 and found that they contained all the information required. Staff told us, however, that some overpayment decision letters needed to be re-typed as they did not always contain the reason why the overpayment had occurred.

3.63 Our sampling of overpayment decision letters revealed some examples of human error, which we cover in more detail in the Overpayments section of this report.

Recommendations
We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

·makes representations to its software supplier to ensure that all decision letters produced by the benefits IT system comply with Schedule 6 of the HB (General) Regulations 1987 and the similar provisions in the CTB (General) Regulations 1992.

Accessible, quality service for claimants with specific needs

3.64 It is important that 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 problems.

3.66 London Borough of Harrow was not at Standard in this element because it:

3.67 However, London Borough of Harrow had made the Financial and Exchequer services reception area accessible to disabled customers and had claim forms, leaflets and letters available in Braille, large-scale font and on audio cassette.

Disability

3.68 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires public buildings to be accessible to all members of the public.

3.69 The Financial and Exchequer services reception area had wheelchair access, an automatic opening door and low-level counters. London Borough of Harrow provided us with evidence of a full assessment that had been carried out on the Financial and Exchequer services reception area to measure its compliance. The assessment resulted in a number of recommendations to upgrade the reception area and these were with Members for approval while we were on-site.

Customer interaction in a suitable format

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

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

3.72 Claim forms, letters and leaflets were available in Braille, large-scale font, or on audio cassette and senior managers told us that these could be provided at short notice. A text phone was available for customers telephoning the Benefits section and a loop system for the deaf and hard of hearing was fitted in reception. A number of benefit staff could speak another language and were able to assist with interpretation at reception. London Borough of Harrow also subscribed to, and used, an interpretation service for customers visiting reception. Only the minicom service was advertised on the claim forms.

3.73 One member of the Benefits section was qualified to level one in British Sign Language but there was no information in the reception area about the availability of this service for customers.

3.74 London Borough of Harrow told us that it had a Race Equality Scheme but it had not assessed the needs of the ethnic minority customers in the area. Although 41% of the borough’s residents were of ethnic minority origin, staff told us that the authority had no plans to provide claim forms in any other language, other than English, because the costs of doing so were prohibitive.

3.75 To achieve Standard London Borough of Harrow should:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· analyses the communication needs of ethnic minority groups in the area

· establishes procedures to ensure that customers are made aware of information that is in a suitable format for their needs for example audio cassette, text phone facilities, large print or computer disk

· carries out an annual review of the availability and usage of facilities for the disabled.

Accessibility

3.76 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 Benefits service need to be addressed.

3.77 London Borough of Harrow told us that it had carried out a survey and that 95% of the borough’s residents could get to Financial and Exchequer services reception without needing to change bus or train more than once.

3.78 Car parking facilities for visitors were available at the Civic Offices and the nearest underground and main line stations were less than a 2-minute walk from the Financial and Exchequer services reception.

3.79 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 and the availability of this service was advertised on the claim forms.

Consultation with customer representative groups

3.80 An authority should consult with customer representative groups, including Citizens Advice Bureau, 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.

3.81 London Borough of Harrow did not formally consult with customer representative groups on the effectiveness of the service provided but it was aware of the major concerns identified by these groups and meetings had taken place to discuss the issues causing concern.

3.82 We met with representatives from Citizens Advice Bureau, Age Concern and the Housing Advice Centre who all told us that their involvement was increasing through regular meetings with the Benefits section but there was still scope for improvement. The poor telephone service and the queues at reception were a major cause of complaint.

3.83 London Borough of Harrow would achieve Standard if it:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· consults with all 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

3.84 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.

3.85 London Borough of Harrow was not at Standard in this element because there had been no formal assessment of whether the service met the needs of customers who work.

3.86 Staff told us that some customers had complained that there was an insufficient number of Customer Advisors on duty at the reception during lunchtimes, but London Borough of Harrow had not addressed these complaints. Our observations of the reception during these periods indicated that there was a reduced service at these times. Insufficient cover on reception and restricted telephone access is a particular problem for customers who work, as they would usually attempt to contact the office between 12.00 and 14.00 hours.

3.87 London Borough of Harrow had procedures to act on information received from Jobcentre Plus to make extended payments or fast-track claims and rapid reclaims. All information received from Jobcentre Plus was dealt with within 7 calendar days of receipt. We were pleased to see that the benefits IT system automatically produced a letter inviting a reclaim when a notification was received that IS or JSA(IB) had ceased. A new claim form was attached to this letter when it was issued to the customer.

3.88 To achieve Standard an authority should also provide a certificate of earnings form to the customer when payslips are unavailable. London Borough of Harrow 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 and fortnightly 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.

3.89 To achieve Standard, London Borough of Harrow should assess the needs of customers who work and develop an action plan to address any shortfalls identified.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· assesses the access needs of customers who work and develops an action plan to ensure any shortfalls are addressed.

Encouraging benefit take-up, reducing poverty

3.90 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.

3.91 London Borough of Harrow was not at Standard in this element because:

3.92 However, we were pleased to see that:

3.93 To achieve Standard in this element, London Borough of Harrow should develop a strategy for HB and CTB take-up that targets information at specific groups, includes joint initiatives and ensures leaflets and posters are available to raise public awareness.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· develops a strategy for benefits 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 all council reception points and provides information leaflets about extended payments or fast tracking

- routinely offers advice to customers who intend starting work.

Addressing complaints about the service effectively

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

3.95 London Borough of Harrow was at Standard in this element because Financial and Exchequer services operated clear procedures and set targets for dealing with complaints. Although the procedures were not documented in procedural guidance for staff they were outlined in a customer leaflet that was available from Customer Advisors at the Financial and Exchequer services reception.

3.96 London Borough of Harrow’s complaints procedure was a 2-stage process:

3.97 The receipt and progress of all complaints relating to Financial and Exchequer services was monitored by the Head of Financial and Exchequer services, who kept a record of the type of complaint and whether it had been cleared within the target of 3 working days.

3.98 Analysis of complaints can be a useful tool for local authorities. It can identify substantial weaknesses in processes and inform training needs, in addition to providing information on the current level of performance.

3.99 In addition to a record of the number of complaints it received and the time it took to respond, London Borough of Harrow also kept records of the nature of the complaint and whether the complaint was upheld. Figure 3.2 provides details of the number of complaints received by Financial and Exchequer services from April 2000 to December 2002.

Fig. 3.2: Complaints received – 2000/01 – December 2002

Year

Total number of complaints received by Financial and Exchequer services

Benefits service related complaints

Number

% of all
complaints

2000/01

205

110

54

2001/02

180

85

47

2002/03 – December 2002

102

63

62

Source: London Borough of Harrow

Fig. 3.3: Speed of response to Benefits service complaints – 2001/03 – December 2002

Time taken

2001/02

%

2002/03 – December 2002
%

Complaints replied to within 3 working days

87

83

Complaints more than 3 but less than 10 working days

8

14

More than 10 working days

5

3

Total

100

100

Source: London Borough of Harrow

3.100 Figure 3.3 shows that 83% of complaints received about the Benefits service from April 2002 to December 2002 were responded to within 3 days.

3.101 London Borough of Harrow had dealt with 8 complaints about the Benefits service that had been made to the Local Government Ombudsman since April 2002, of these:

3.102 London Borough of Harrow could improve its procedures by documenting its complaints procedure and making it available to staff.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· formally documents the complaints procedure and makes the procedure available to all staff.

Dealing with requests for reconsideration and appeal referrals effectively

3.103 Local authorities should ensure that:

3.104 London Borough of Harrow was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

3.105 In our first report we recommended that London Borough of Harrow:

We were disappointed that London Borough of Harrow had not implemented either of these recommendations.

3.106 Staff told us that a member of the Assessment Team looked at all letters received each day, prior to the scanning operation, to identify urgent post, appeals and complaints.

3.107 Benefit Assessors had the responsibility for dealing with all requests for reconsideration and the Assistant Benefits Managers (Assessment) had responsibility for preparing cases for a hearing by the appeal tribunal

3.108 At the time we were on-site, there were 72 documents on the document image processing system that had been identified as a request for reconsideration or an appeal referral. The oldest of these had been received on 12 November 2002. Each of these documents was in the backlog of work and had not been looked at by a Benefit Assessor.

3.109 There were a further 47 decisions that had been reconsidered by a Benefit Assessor and passed to the Assistant Benefits Managers (Assessment) as an appeal. These documents all required a submission to be prepared to the Appeals Service for a tribunal hearing. The oldest appeal outstanding was shown as having been received by London Borough of Harrow on 29 August 2001.

3.110 London Borough of Harrow had procedures in place for processing appeals but we were concerned that it was not following its own procedures and had allowed a significant backlog of requests for reconsideration and appeals to accumulate.

3.111 London Borough of Harrow did not comply with guidance or have systems to deal with referrals as set out in the Department’s circulars A11/2001 and A18/2001. The London Borough of Harrow could not provide assurance that it had made adequate provision to deal effectively with requests for reconsideration or appeals.

3.112 There was no evidence of regular monitoring or management of the cases identified as a request for reconsideration or appeal. Monthly service plan monitoring reports to the Head of Financial and Exchequer services provided no information about the backlog of requests for reconsideration or appeals that was outstanding. This backlog must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

3.113 Our sample of appeals revealed that some documents that had been initially identified as an appeal were letters actually informing the authority of a change of circumstances. London Borough of Harrow’s failure to identify these notifications of changes of circumstances meant that an incorrect amount of benefit may have been paid.

3.114 Figure 3.4 provides details of the appeals that we analysed. This shows that London Borough of Harrow failed to correctly identify or prioritise requests for reconsideration and appeals. It also demonstrates that there were delays in responding to correspondence and poor customer service.

Fig. 3.4: Summary of outstanding requests for reconsideration and appeal referral cases taken from BFI sample

Case reference

Date appeal received

Action taken by London Borough of Harrow following receipt

Comments

Case A

18/11/2002

No action

Appeal against a decision made in respect of Discretionary Housing Benefit for which the authority had a separate 2-stage appeals procedure.

Case B

25/11/2002

Further information requested

An attempt had been made to answer the request for reconsideration by requesting further information.

The customer replied to this request and provided additional information, the decision should have been reconsidered.

Case C

04/12/2002

No action

Letter from customer requested that the authority reconsider its decision and supplied additional information.

Case D

 12/12/2002

No action

Letter from customer should have been regarded as a request for a reconsideration of the council’s decision.

Case E

30/01/2003

No action

Request for reconsideration of a decision to recover from the landlord received 30/01/2003.

Request for reconsideration of a decision to recover from the landlord received 19/2/2003 same reasons given as the first letter.

Case F

11/02/2003

No action

Letter from a solicitor on behalf of a customer requested that consideration be given to a late appeal.

Case G

25/02/2003

No action

Not a request for a reconsideration or an appeal. Letter requested backdated benefit.

Case H

30/01/2003

No action

Letter from solicitor asked for confirmation that the claim for benefit had been decided.

No action since 30/01/2003. A reply to the letter from the solicitor could have been dealt with by a Benefit Assessor.

Case I

31/01/2003

No action

Completed appeal form received from the customer requesting an appeal.

Case J

31/01/2003

No action

Letter from customer queried the self- employed income assessment that had been used, the non-dependant charge and the income disregard. Letter from Housing Department dated 5/12/2002 had threatened eviction.

No priority had been placed on the customer’s letter. A Benefit Assessor could have dealt with this case. No action had been taken since 31/01/2003.

Source: London Borough of Harrow and BFI analysis

3.115 Although there is no time limit on the referral of cases to the Appeals Service it is unacceptable for customers to suffer unreasonable delays. Customers who had requested that the authority reconsiders its decision were entitled to expect a prompt response or to have had their appeal heard by an independent tribunal. We would expect London Borough of Harrow to implement immediate measures to clear the outstanding cases.

3.116 To achieve Standard in this element, London Borough of Harrow should:

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Harrow:

· produces and delivers a plan to clear the outstanding requests for reconsideration and appeals and ensures that it does not recur

· sets targets for dealing with requests for reconsideration and appeals

· takes action to ensure that requests for reconsideration and appeals are identified and given a high priority

· produces management information to monitor the progress of requests for reconsideration and appeals

· ensures that it has systems in place to comply with the regulatory components of the decision making and appeals guidance in the Department’s circulars A11/2001 and A18/2001.

Previous
Next