» Liaison and Feedback
» Complaints
» Communications
The sheer pressure of day to day business over the last few years has prevented PTO management from establishing the sort of liaison with the main stakeholders to its operations that enable all parties concerned to contribute to improving the service. Several voluntary organisations said that they stood ready to offer help and advice on the Protection and Receivership work of the Agency: some said they had expressed the wish to do so in the past. They would like to be able to raise concerns, not in a spirit of confrontation (they all recognised the difficulties and sensitivities of the work PTO staff were required to do) but because they felt that joint discussion of problems could resolve them more quickly and to better effect for the individual patients concerned. More than one organisation commented that other Executive Agencies, even ones that had contentious duties to carry out, have got well-established liaison groups nowadays, where organisations with a linked interest or expertise help shape improvements to service delivery, discuss areas of difficulty and provide valuable feedback.
It is recommended that the PTO set up the sort of regular liaison forum that its main stakeholder groups would like. Comparable bi-lateral forums already exist between the PTO and the Law Society and the Court of Protection and both these bodies should appear on wider groups. It might be best if recipients of the PTO's services form one group while partnership deliverers share another because the two agendas are very different. Twice yearly meetings at senior level between all parties to review, listen and suggest on a two way basis can only improve the performance of the PTO and the client service it provides.
To augment the above, it is recommended that the PTO establish a programme of client surveys, devised and analysed to professional standards to help inform its business and service developments. One large survey was completed in 1998 and provided PTO management with valuable information about which areas of its performance were judged most important to those who were affected by them. The material flowing from a survey programme (which can target specific areas of work on a rolling basis) and regular stakeholder meetings would be a rich source of constructive planning and management information for the PTO. It would cover the performance of its contracted service providers, early indications of client needs and an up-to-date assessment of its perceived effectiveness.
The PTO has done a lot of work in the last couple of years to improve its literature about its complaints procedures. Several organisations commented that leaflets on the subject were now well written but there are areas where further progress needs to be made. Even amongst individuals and organisations with a fair degree of knowledge of the Court of Protection, there is considerable ignorance of the fact that as an Executive Agency the PTO has a range of options for people wanting to make a complaint about its operation or administration. There is no independent element to complaints handling and letters from a Director or the Chief Executive in response to individual complaints do not routinely explain other avenues that are open, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman).
There is an internal categorisation of “justified” or ‘unjustified' for complaints, which can introduce an air of defensiveness right at the start of the process and in any case poses the obvious question as to who in the PTO is in a position to make this subjective judgement. There is no established mechanism for analysing complaints and using them to identify weaknesses in operations, policy or Court procedures and the systems for tracking letters of complaint are variable in different parts of the Agency.
It is recommended that LCD HQ assist the Director for Change to review the PTO's practices and procedures for answering complaints, including recording and tracking them. Further lines of appeal must be clearly described in every reply to a complaint including the right to raise the issue with an MP and the Ombudsman. It is also recommended that, as with the Land Registry and other Executive Agencies and Government Departments, the PTO gives serious consideration to appointing an Independent Complaints Examiner. It may be that one of the existing Adjudicators or Complaints Examiners would be able and willing to include the PTO's work in their current scheme, but if necessary a bespoke one might need to be established.
The advantages to clients and service providers alike of offering a demonstrably independent examination of a persisting complaint before it either escalates into a protracted Ombudsman case or merely festers away between an unhappy client and the organisation, have been well-proved over recent years. Judging from the occasions during this Review when it was either raised by some organisations or welcomed by others, this is a suggestion for improved customer service that is worth careful consideration. It would go a long way to disproving the allegations of remoteness and defensiveness which a number of individuals and organisations levied against the PTO during this Review, especially when complaints about it were under discussion.
The PTO has not yet produced any of its literature in any language other than English: this is highly unusual for a service provider nowadays. Moreover, it is not clear that either it, or the Court of Protection, could liaise appropriately with any private receiver or trustee who was blind, dumb or deaf. These are all major deficiencies in a public service that needs to be able to communicate effectively with clients who can come from all sections of society. Executive Agencies have made considerable progress in all these areas in recent years and of course the financial and legal professions and the courts have made major adjustments for their equivalent clients too. It is recommended that the Director for Change addresses these communication shortcomings in the PTO's services as quickly as possible, using stakeholder liaison groups, relevant charities and the progress of comparable Agencies as sources of good ideas.
There is one specific area where shortcomings in administration are the regular cause of distressing communication slip-ups in client service to stakeholders and a lack of effective IT systems is only the partial reason for it. Several times a week complaints are made to PTO staff, Lord Chancellor's Visitors and the brokers arranging protection insurance bonds that receivers have been contacted about a patient whose death has previously been notified to the Agency. This sort of communication is always very distressing for someone who has been bereaved and has done everything they can think of to inform all the necessary authorities. When the person concerned has specifically notified the PTO (which is not a huge organisation) of the death of the individual for whose affairs they have been responsible, then the annoyance and pain are felt even more keenly. The Lord Chancellor's Visitors report that they regularly notify receivers of their intention to visit on the strength of information supplied by Protection or Receivership Divisions, only to receive the highly embarrassing response that the person concerned had died weeks or even months before and the PTO had been told. HSBC Insurance Brokers Ltd get up to half a dozen such complaints a week from private receivers who usually assume the mistake is theirs.
From anecdotal evidence, discussions with PTO staff and an examination of a few of the cases involved, it seems that, even with imperfect IT systems, much can be done to remove this indefensible weakness in operations. It is recommended that the Director for Change leads a thorough review of the internal action that must be taken to ensure that notification of death is given top priority and cascaded throughout the Agency. Some minor enhancements to existing or planned case management systems may be needed, even if a complete IT solution requires a major change and is therefore not a short-term answer. But instilling an understanding of the importance of such action in all areas of the Agency is equally vital. The establishment of an audit trail of all relevant business areas and ways in which they can be urgently notified would be a relatively easy exercise. Careful analysis by senior management of any future complaints would also help. Failure in such a sensitive piece of customer service sends very clear signals about an organisation's efficiency to those who suffer from it; the PTO should take rapid action for the sake of its own reputation as well as to avoid upsetting people needlessly.