aporia step 4/6

cross-reaching via pidgeon truth and reconciliation

Advertisements

33 Responses to “aporia step 4/6”

  1. […] Introduction […] This document gives my views on the key Principles of Good Complaints Handling. I want public bodies and complainants to understand what I mean by good complaint handling and to be clear about the behaviours and standards I expect from public bodies when dealing with complaints. The Principles flow from, and should be read in conjunction with the Principles of Good Administration and Principles for Remedy. Good complaint handling is a fundamental part of good administration, so the same principles apply […]

  2. alors ! a thin blue line πŸ™‚

  3. […] 1. Getting it right […] Public bodies should regard dealing with complaints as an integral part of the service they provide to customers and they should consider the policy and practice of complaints handling as part of the whole service. Complaints management should not be an afterthought.
    Staff should be properly equipped and empowered to put things right promptly where something has gone wrong. Staff should be supported by clear lines of authority and decision-making which are flexible enough to enable them to respond to complaints effectively and authoritatively.
    Complaints handling should focus on the outcome for the complainant and, where appropriate, others similarly affected. Complaints handling should not focus on procedures and processes which can delay decisions and lead to unfair outcomes […]

  4. reminds me of one of our appendices – ah oui, Appendix Green – we said this once, but then had to devise multiple channels of repeated delivery and diagnostic – including this SOFAR channel right here, right now

  5. […] 2. Being customer focused […] Public bodies should respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. This means considering what adjustments to their normal approach to handling a complaint may be necessary in the circumstances. Where complaints raise issues about services provided by more than one public body, the public body should ensure that the complaint is dealt with in a co-ordinated way with other providers and, if they are unable to respond, refer them quickly to other sources of help […]

  6. evidently Appendix F continues to throw a spanner in the whistleblowing works

  7. […] 3. Being open and accountable […] Public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should give honest and evidence based explanations and give reasons for their decisions. Public bodies should be open and truthful when things have gone wrong, provide a full explanation and say what they will do to put matters right, so as to resolve the complaint as quickly as possible.
    Public bodies should create and maintain reliable and usable records as evidence of their activities. Complaints records should include the evidence they have considered and the reasons for their decisions. Public bodies should manage complaints records in line with recognised standards to ensure that they can be retrieved and that they are kept for as long as there is a statutory duty or a business need, which can include the need to respond to complaints or to provide relevant information to the Ombudsman […]

  8. so the (re)shaping of balls to come are going to take some serious (re)shaping

  9. […] 4. Acting fairly and proportionately […] Complaints should be dealt with objectively, fairly and consistently, so that similar circumstances are handled in a similar manner. Any difference in the decision in respect of two cases about the same sort of complaint should be justified by the individual circumstances of the complaint or of the complainant. Public bodies should seek to ensure that where a complaint relates to an ongoing relationship between the public body and the complainant, the complaint does not adversely impact on the service provided to the complainant.
    Public bodies should avoid taking a rigid, process driven, β€˜one-size-fits-all’ approach to complaint handling and ensure that the response to an individual complaint is proportionate to the circumstances. This means taking into account the seriousness of the issues raised, the impact on the complainant and any other people who may have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same problem […]

  10. someone’s going to have to redo their SUMs

  11. […] 5. Putting things right […] In many cases a prompt explanation and an apology will be sufficient. There are a wide range of appropriate responses to a complaint which has been upheld; these will include financial and non-financial remedies. In deciding on an appropriate remedy the public body should take into account the nature of the complaint, the impact on the individual affected, the length of time it has taken to resolve the complaint and the trouble the complainant was put to in pursuing it […]

  12. then perhaps we can take it as read that Appendix F did not quite count as an apology in all due sincerity

  13. […] 6. Seeking continuous improvement […] Good complaint handling is not limited to providing an individual remedy to the complainant; public bodies should ensure that the lessons learnt from complaints are put into practice and contribute to service improvements.
    Public bodies should also ensure that the complainant receives an assurance that lessons have been learnt and an explanation of changes that have been made to prevent a recurrence of the matters complained about. Learning from complaints is a powerful way of helping to improve public service, enhancing the reputation of a public body and increasing trust among the people who use its service. Public bodies should have systems to record, analyse and report on the learning from complaints; and they should apply the information to improve service design and delivery […]

  14. […] These Principles are not a checklist to be applied mechanically. Public bodies should use their judgment in applying them to produce reasonable, fair and proportionate results in the circumstances. The Ombudsman will adopt a similar approach when considering the standard of complaint handling by public bodies in jurisdiction […]

  15. CaVeaT eMPToR par excellence – bon chance mon ami πŸ˜‰

  16. […] we were here for fair play on colo(u)red clay, which isn’t quite the same as tennis with a cricket ball, surely ? […]

  17. […] 7 July 2008, 2.55pm […]

    I have been advised that in order to progress your complaint-in-progress (see below) you need to confirm the following information.

    1. to confirm that you wish to make a formal complaint under the […]’s complaints procedure;
    2. that you grant me permission to share your email below with […], the […] Executive Secretary, so that he is able to consider it;
    3. that you confirm what method of communication you would prefer, letter or email?

    With thanks […]

  18. […] just picked up your note below – sorry to find that you still appear to be caught, perhaps, in the process of being framed as a potential scape goat for what has come to pass so far – hope you have had a chance to seek independent charitable advise with regards your own position as per telegram sent to you dated 31st May 2008 (now publicly visible at https://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/re-shaping-of-balls-to-come/ on the off-chance that you have not had sight of the original)

    at all events, trust you and […] colleagues find the following process description – in open development context – useful at this ombudsman consultative stage in the proceedings:

    https://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/aporia-step-46/

    aporia’s deadline for responding to this public consultation has been set for 1st August 2008 – so feel free to make best efforts in the meantime with a view to providing a full explanation as you and the […] see fit by return

    as ever, all rights are reserved generally […]

  19. furled complaints procedure filed here, for the public record

  20. […] 21 July 2008, 4.16pm […]
    Thank you for your recent message. I understand by it that you wish the JISC to investigate the complaint-in-progress. In order to do this, we require more information. I have been asked to request that you send to us by email or letter (as you prefer):

    1. a brief description of the complaint
    2. How you might wish the complaint to be remedied
    3. permission for Dr […] to share the documentation that you have sent to us with others in order to investigate fully.

    If any of this requires further explanation, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
    Best wishes […]

  21. Hello […]

    Please could you confirm by return who exactly has asked you to make the requests as per below at this stage?

    Many thanks […]

  22. […] 22 July 2008, 8.27am […] the request was made by the complaints advisor at the Higher Education Funding Council for England who is providing support and advice to […] on the use of the JISC complaints procedure […]

  23. […] Thanks for this – though am confused – just to double-check – are you referring to […] who is designated complaints advisor for complaints made to the Higher Education Funding Council for England regarding the Council itself? Or some other named individual?

    And/or do JISC staff no longer have access to JISC’s own designated complaints advisor? At any event, what has become of the role of the Head of Policy and Corporate Services and/or […]?

    It would be helpful if you could clarify the situation by return so that we may ascertain next best steps accordingly […]

  24. […] 23 July 2008, 3.16pm […] to clarify: […] is responsible for implementing the JISC complaints process. He is employed by the HEFCE so draws upon a range of HEFCE staff for advice on how to implement the process […]

  25. […] Thank you for sharing this point of clarity.

    We can now confirm that the fact of […] being employed by the HEFCE presents a conflict of interest that, in all fairness, means that he cannot be privy to those parts of this case that remain confidential without, inter alia, compromising our best efforts to minimise costs and damages in relation to proceedings at this stage – i.e. a full 4 calendar months on from the date of the complaint first being formally raised.

    However, in response to what has been asked of you, please feel free to expressly direct Dr […] and kind colleagues at the HEFCE to the publicly accessible WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY at https://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/ by way of careful introduction, and to extend the open invitation to participate in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s current consultation process at http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news/pgch_consultation.html on behalf of both the JISC and HEFCE, if they haven’t done so as standard already.

    In particular, we have long noted the similarities and differences between the complaints procedures of both the JISC and the HEFCE in this regard, and would strongly recommend that these be reviewed at the earliest opportunity, whether or not this present case may have served to shed light on anything specific so far […] as ever, all rights are reserved generally […]

  26. Peter Piper (formally) picked a peck of (informally) pickled Peppers:
    Did Peter Piper (formerly) pick a peck of (formally) pickled Peppers?
    If Peter Piper (formally) picked a peck of (formerly) pickled Peppers,
    Where’s the peck of (formerly) pickled Peppers Pidgeon Piper picked?

  27. […] 13 August 2008, 12.50pm […] I write again with reference to the complaint that you have made to me, initially on 24 March 2008 […] Given this situation […] I have sought advice from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. JISC is constitutionally part of HEFCE though operates with a considerable degree of autonomy and, for example, operates its own complaints procedure. They have advised me to write to you as I have done today. Please note that I will be on leave from today until 10 September 2008 so I will respond to you after that date […]

  28. […] Just picked up your email dated 13th August below – please be advised that personally have been based outside of the UK since 8th August and will not be back at my desk until mid-September, so will endeavour to respond on return in due course […]

  29. 1, 2, buckle my shoe
    3, 4, knock at the door
    5, 6, pick up sticks
    7, 8, lay them straight
    9, 10, a big fat hen
    (poor old incy finnegan, begin again…?)

  30. […] Further to my email dated 3 September 2008 sent by way of initial holding reply to your email dated 13 August 2008, please be advised that your email dated 13 August 2008 will be referred to hereafter as Appendix E5.

    Similarly, for the record, your previous correspondence dated 31 March 2008, 11 April 2008, and 8 May 2008 will be referred to hereafter as Appendix E2, Appendix E3, and Appendix E4 respectively.

    For the avoidance of doubt, your “other” email dated 13 June 2008 will be expressly referred to as Appendix E(2+1)

    Please advise by return if you should consider the above list of received correspondence sent in your name as JISC Head of Innovation to be uncomplete in any way, save for the present thread of our most recent exchanges of correspondence forwarded herewith commencing 7 July 2008 to be referred to hereafter as Appendix E 66+

    At all events, hope this stratification helps clarify matters as circumstances continue to unfold inter alia by virtue of our WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY brokering new ground as we speak – as ever, all rights are reserved generally […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s