Agenda item

This report provides the annual review of complaints received and decisions made by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) between April 2025 and March 2026 inclusive, including details of two complaints upheld by the LGO. This report also provides an update on data breaches and the way the council handles data complaints as a result of updated legislation.

The Committee received a report that provided the annual review of complaints received and decisions made by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) between April 2025 and March 2026 inclusive, including details of two complaints upheld by the LGO. The report also provided an update on data breaches and the way the council handles data complaints as a result of updated legislation.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Upheld Complaints: A Member had previously mentioned the high number of upheld complaints per 100,000 people in Surrey and whilst it was recognised that the numbers were low he asked if it was known why this council’s score was higher than the other 11 councils in Surrey. Another Member reiterated the same question emphasising the ‘per capita’ and was there systemic weaknesses in stage one and stage two complaints processes failing to resolve resident issues and therefore forcing them to escalate to the LGO. He spoke of the rising numbers over the last few years and asked what concrete service improvement plan has been put in place to reverse this trajectory before the transition to a new unitary authority. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services explained that when you look at the details of those upheld there was no cause for concern or systemic failure.  There had been a query about whether one of them should have been included and the other one was only partly upheld.  The council did very well with stage one and stage two complaints and had a good working relationship with the Ombudsman.

It was stated by a Member that when dealing with such small numbers there needed to be a viability threshold and thought the council number of upheld complaints was so small that they would not cross a viability threshold.

b)             Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Complaints: A Member stated that under the new Data Usage and Access Act the public’s right to go straight to the ICO had been removed making the council legally responsible for handling and resolving date protection complaints internally in the first instance. Given that he asked, if this legal change would place a significant administrative burden on the council and how would the council guarantee a transparent, objective, and unbiased internal investigation process for residents complaining about the council’s own data handling. Also, had the financial and operational impacts of this new internal complaints process been quantified and was there a clear timeline on when these metrics will be reported alongside the standard corporate complaints.

The Assistant Director for Corporate Services directed the committee to section six of the report that dealt with this change in the law.  He also explained that new complaints would go to the Business Support Team, that the complaints policy had been updated and there would still be a stage one and stage two process.  It was also stated that how this was reported into the new council was a conversation still to be had.

Following consideration, it was resolved to (5 for and 2 abstentions):

(1)       Note the report.