Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32
Dear Mr ,
I refer to the letter dated 03 February 2016 in which it was confirmed that your complaint had
been escalated to the final stage of the Council's complaints procedure. The issues you have
raised have been investigated which has included a review of the stage 1 response. This
investigation has been undertaken independently of the officers that have previously handled
your complaint.
The enclosed investigating officer's report details the findings of this investigation which I
consider has been correctly and fairly carried out in accordance with the Council's Feedback
Policy. Please accept our apologies for the element of your complaint which was found to be
upheld.
If you are not satisfied with this response and the outcome of your complaint, you have the right
to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, whose contact details are as follows:
I would like to thank you for bringing these issues to the Council's attention. This has been, of
necessity, a formal response driven by our Feedback Policy and procedures, designed to
ensure full, fair and impartial examination of concerns which arise. I am personally always very
keen to see how we can improve our services and learning from complaints is one way of
achieving this. Although you may not be happy about all aspects of my conclusions, I am
hoping you will accept that this matter has had proper consideration.
Municipal Offices, Town Hall Square, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire. DN31 1HU
Telephone (01472) 324700 email: rob.walsh@nelincs.gov.uk
North East Lincolnshire Council
The complaint is partially upheld with respect to the delays in receiving a response to correspondence.
Summary of complaint:
1. The Council’s 6 week delay in responding to his correspondence dated 10th November 2015
2. The Council asserts that the concerns raised about the Liability Order falls outside the scope of
the complaints process
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) Decision Statement, Ref No 15016673 dated 24th February
2016.
It was not considered necessary to meet the complainant as the letters of complaint and background
information provided enough detail to ensure full consideration of the issues.
Findings:
1. The Council’s 6 week delay in responding to his correspondence dated 10th November 2015. Mr N
Smith responded to Mr by letter offering an apology dated 21st December 2015.
Furthermore this was upheld at stage 1 of the complaints process and communicated to Mr
in a formal letter dated 29th January 2016. The Council did fall below its high standards for
responding to correspondence in this matter and for that the Council apologises again.
2. The Council asserts that the concerns raised about the Liability Order falls outside the scope of
the complaints process. The Council's Corporate Feedback Policy V03–2, Appendix B:3 states that
"a complaint that is being dealt with or was previously dealt with by legal proceedings” is
outside the scope of the Council's complaints process. As a result of Mr prematurely
lodging a complaint with the LGO prior to the findings of the Council's investigations, the Council
finds the same as the LGO in its Decision Statement, Ref No 15016673 dated 24th February 2016.
“The Ombudsman may not consider matters which are subject to the commencement of court
proceedings, regardless of the outcome”. The Council considers that Mr ’s complaints
have been appropriately dealt with by the LGO and therefore the Council fully agrees with the
Ombudsman’s final decision.
This investigation has found that the Council acted in accordance with the Regulations and Guidance at
all times.
The recommendation is that, wherever it is possible, for teams to share deadlines where they are likely
to occur during periods of absence. It is acknowledged, however, that where absence is unexpected this
may not always be met.
Mr has asked that complaints be responded to within prescribed deadlines and the Council will
strive to achieve this, wherever possible. Mr has been given an apology for the delay in
th
responding to his initial communication on 10 November 2015. It should also be highlighted that
although this delay should not have happened it has had no detrimental impact on the complainant.
Mr has asked for his concerns raised in relation to the Liability Order to be considered within the
Council’s complaint process. The Council is in agreement with the LGO that they may not consider
matters which are subject to the commencement of court proceedings, regardless of the outcome.
Susan Harrison
Assistant Director:
Sally Jack