Spotlight : Independent Case Examiner
Jodi Berg is the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) for the Child Support Agency and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Her role is to investigate complaints made about these Agencies by service users. Jodi talks about her challenging role.
Your role in handling complaints against the Child Support Agency is a relatively recent development within administrative justice. How and why did this new statutory role come about?
I should explain that my role is not established by statute. Some years ago, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was receiving an unprecedented number of complaints about the Child Support Agency. In order to cope with this influx of work, the Ombudsman had to restrict his investigations to issues he had not looked at before, or to contentious issues. Clearly this was unfair to Agency customers who had legitimate complaints that required investigation. At his suggestion, the Secretary of State agreed to introduce a further intermediate tier of independent complaint handling. As a result, my predecessor, Anne Parker, was appointed early in 1997. Three years later, the service was extended to cover the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland.
As well as my role in relation to Child Support Agency and the Social Security Agency, I also work with other pubic bodies (Land Registry, the Charity Commission, the Housing Corporation and The National Archives).
How is your role different to that of a tribunal or an ombudsman?
As my role is not statutory, I do not make legally enforceable decisions in the way that an Appeal Tribunal does. Indeed, I am specifically prevented from considering matters that are covered by legislation. Nevertheless, I am able to resolve many cases where people would otherwise appeal to the Tribunal, by pointing out to the Agency that its actions have been unfair or have not accorded with its published procedure. In this way I am able to negotiate an agreed settlement within a few weeks of a referral, at no cost to the complainant.
It is worth mentioning that people who ask for my help can have a number of different concerns about the way that the Agency has dealt with them. Some of these may be subject to appeal rights, such as maintenance assessment decisions, but others may be about process, such as delay or the attitude of staff.
We handle referrals differently from most tribunal services, as we resolve complaints through an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial process. I do not hold hearings, although we do give people ample opportunity to talk to members of the team and explain what has happened from their perspective. Ultimately our focus is not on who is right or wrong, but rather on a fair and proportionate result, which supports the restoration of the relationship between the individual and the organisation concerned.
My role is comparable to that of an Ombudsman in that I look at complaints about maladministration from an independent standpoint, report my conclusions and recommend the appropriate action to put things right where they have gone wrong. Importantly, I have a responsibility to help an Agency learn the lessons from complaints that will prevent similar problems from arising in the future.
Do your customers still have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal after you've finished dealing with their complaints?
The right of appeal runs in parallel to the right to use my service. However, because of the time restrictions in the appeal process, often people have missed the boat in terms of submitting an appeal and are left to try to sort things out through the complaints route. Regrettably, because these two processes run in parallel with no meeting point between them, it is very difficult for people to have problems dealt with holistically.
If clients wish to pursue their complaints after I have considered them, they can ask an MP to refer them to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
When you reached a decision on a complaint, is the CSA obliged to act on your recommendation?
Although the Agency has no statutory obligation to do so, our mutual expectation is that it will implement the recommendations that I make. In the very rare cases where it does not do so, it has agreed to give a written explanation for this to me and to the complainant. In general, I am pleased to say that the Agency responds positively to my recommendations, whether they are aimed at putting things right for an individual or at general service improvement. Importantly, I am able to monitor the Agency's response through to implementation.
What remedies can you offer to those who bring their grievances to you?
It is important to recognise that clients are looking for various remedies when they refer a complaint to me.
Most people want the Agency to acknowledge that it has made mistakes or acted inappropriately and apologise for this. Often action is needed to correct errors or to compensate people for the loss that has resulted from them. Some people deserve a consolatory payment that recognises the distress and anxiety that have been caused by the Agency's maladministration. Finally, people want to know that steps will be taken to ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again. My recommendations can address all of these aspects of complaint resolution.
How do you ensure that the CSA learns lessons from the findings in the cases you deal with?
My reports are presented to the Agency so that it can act upon my recommendations. We have regular meetings with the Agency and ensure that it is aware of emerging trends and findings. My responsibility to make systemic recommendations means that I can take forward issues that have wider reaching implications beyond a specific case, where the Agency's processes and procedures could be changed for the benefit of future customers. I monitor the Agency's responses to these recommendations and comment on this in my published Annual Reports.
What aspects of your role give you the most satisfaction?
There are very few jobs that give one an opportunity to make a real difference for people who have been unfairly treated by Government. I think that I am privileged to be able to do this. Every week we hear from people who say that their lives have been changed for the better because of our help – what more could I ask for?
And what aspects offer the least satisfaction?
Perhaps I can answer this by saying what I find most frustrating, which is the slow pace of change in Agency processes and the failure to get to grips with fundamental administrative problems. Over time this has resulted in a very large increase of referrals to me. I am pleased that the Agency is working on a new service delivery strategy and I hope that in time this will mean fewer complaints – but we'll see.
Where could you see the Independent Case Examiner's role being extended across other areas of the administrative justice world?
I am convinced that there is a place for an independent complaint review process in most areas where central or local government intervenes in people's lives. My experience is that, in situations where the relationship between the individual and officialdom has broken down, independent review can be an invaluable help in sorting out problems and can restore confidence on both sides.
Often we are able to offer advice and guidance or to give people the explanation or reassurance they need about steps taken by the Agency. In the majority of cases an adjudication is not necessary, as we resolve complaints by negotiated agreement. Overall we are able to offer people a simple, speedy and cost effective route to justice.
In all of the areas of public administration which have introduced independent complaint review, this step has helped to bring about real improvements in customer service and strengthened the focus on the needs of citizens.
The challenge now is for all areas of administrative justice to work more closely together, to ensure that people have early access to the service that will best deal with their problem. We have much to learn from one another about how this can be achieved.
(January 2005)