Minutes:
The following was raised under matters arising from the previous meetings:
The council’s habitual complaints policy
The council’s director of law and democracy/monitoring officer, Doreen Forrester-Brown, addressed the meeting in relation to the above.
The community council noted that public questions from a resident on the council’s habitual complaints policy and council’s commitment to honesty, openness and accountability had previously been rejected.
Both questions were not accepted under community council procedure rule 7.3.4 (f) because it raised a grievance for which there were other processes within the council, all of which had been exhausted by the questioner.
Following the meeting on 15 November 2016, the officer’s required action was to inform members of the public and councillors about the council’s interpretation of the habitual complaints policy.
The monitoring officer’s presentation
Doreen Forrester-Brown introduced herself to the meeting and briefly outlined her role as the council's monitoring officer.
The monitoring officer informed the meeting that this matter related to an issue with the public questioner and the council regarding the interpretation of the council’s habitual complaints policy.
She highlighted information about the habitual complaints policy and said that as a public authority, the council represented 230,000 residents in the borough and that the council provides services equally to everyone within the borough.
The council would treat each individual’s complaint with the seriousness it deserves. As monitoring officer, she said she had to ensure that a robust complaints system was in place when residents had concerns about the way the council behaved, whether it was a council officer or a member of the council.
She explained that if someone wished to raise a complaint they could do so through the council’s complaints procedure. However on occasions, certain individuals make excessive demands on the council in terms of making complaints to the council. Often these complaints were unjustified or not warranted. This costs money particularly at a time when the council has experienced a number of budget cuts.
The monitoring officer said it usually takes a long time for the council to decide to make a person a habitual complainant. The council would do this after a fair and transparent process. It would also help manage an individual’s contact with the council to ensure they were not demanding or spending too much of the council’s resources. Out of the borough’s 230,000 residents, eight people have been deemed to be habitual complainants.
The monitoring officer said that the council did not treat this matter lightly and out of the eight habitual complainants, five were treated as such, due to threats of violence and abuse against staff employed by the council. The other three individuals were deemed habitual complainants due to the level of resources and time they demand from the council which was considered to be excessive; of which the questioner was one.
If the council decides to make a person a habitual complainant, then that person can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). The LGO would look at the issue and decide whether or not they agree with the council’s position.
The monitoring officer outlined that the council employs one full time officer at a cost of £30,000 a year to deal with people who send continuous and habitual correspondence to the council.
The chair thanked the monitoring officer for attending the meeting to clarify these issues.
At 1.25 pm the meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes and reconvened at 1.35 pm.
The meeting proceeded to the next item on the agenda.