Evolving standards in the complaints branch

Abstract

It is well known that dispute resolution schemes in the complaints branch, including ombudsman schemes and complaint-handlers, operate a very different dispute resolution methodology to that typically applied in the courts and tribunals. This methodology is widely accepted, but concerns have always existed regarding the fairness of the procedural safeguards deployed in the complaints branch. This article investigates two specific areas of procedural practice in the complaints branch: the openness of the sector in terms of the decisions that it makes and the grounds upon which they are made; and the capacity to review decisions made in the sector. The article argues that there is evidence that, whilst further refinement could be introduced, procedural safeguards in the sector are more robust than hitherto has been understood.

Keywords::

• administrative justice
• procedural safeguards
• transparency
• internal review
• ombudsman

Notes

^1. For an analysis of the likely impact of some of these developments see the contributions to the special edition of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [2013] 35(1).

^2. The internet provides a convenient source of anti-ombudsman sentiment, see http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/. See also submissions to the Select Committee for Communities and Local Government (CLG, 2012) and the Public Administration Select Committee's inquiry on the Parliamentary Ombudsman Service (PASC, 2014b).

^3. This does not include the ability of the complainant to challenge the decision of the ombudsman in the courts.

^4. For instance, for the last three recorded years there have been 28 applications for judicial review against the LGO and none have been successful in court, indeed only three have made it passed the permission stage (Thomas, Martin & Kirkham, 2013, p. 72).

^5. For instance, in 2011–2012 the LGO processed 986 requests for internal review (LGO, 2012, p. 28).

^6. For example, for 2011/12, in 70 cases out of 986 the LGO changed its response as a result of an internal complaint (LGO, 2012, p. 28).

^7. The Association's name was changed in 2012 from the British and Irish Ombudsman Association.

^8. See the Ombudsman Association website, http://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/association-objects.php

^9. This was because either the website was not functioning at the time of the research or because the complaint-handling function was a very small part of a larger regulatory function.

^10. These were: the Charity Commission, the Professional Conduct Committee for the Bar Standards Board, the Independent Complaints Resolution Service, Ofcom, the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (formerly the Office of Judicial Complaints), Ofsted and the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

^11. The study was undertaken in autumn 2013.

^12. This can be the case even when a complainant's name is anonymised if the particular facts of the case are so unique in nature that the individual involved could be easily traced.

^13. These were the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Property Ombudsman, the Insolvency Service, Ofsted and the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman.