Forfatter: Erik Ribsskog

REPORT BY THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR

INTO A COMPLAINT ABOUT

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU

INTRODUCTION

1. National Citizens Advice has asked me to review how the

service has dealt with a complaint about Liverpool CAB.

2. The Citizens Advice Service has a national complaints

procedure. It is set out in a guidance note for member bureaux

and summarised in a leaflet for members of the public.

Complaints are first considered inside the Citizens Advice

service. If a client is not satisfied with the response, they can

ask me to review how their complaint has been dealt with. I do

not have any authority to comment on the substance of a

complaint or to say whether it is justified. My task is to say

whether the service has followed the complaints procedure and

acted fairly. If I find that the procedure was not followed or that

the matter has not been handled fairly, I say why and may give

directions for a re-investigation.

3. In this report I will summarise the background to the complaint.

I will then look at the complaints procedure and the sequence

of events to show whether the complaint has been dealt with in

compliance with it. I will then turn to the content of the

complaint and the replies so that I can see whether the

complaint has been dealt with fairly. To protect the

2

complainant‘s confidentiality I refer to him throughout this

report simply as ”the client‘

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

4. The complaint is about the client‘s requests for advice in the

period February to April 2007. Until the client made his

complaint in May 2007, the bureau‘s only record of their

dealings with him was a brief note made by a solicitor on 27

February 2007. Apart from this, I have relied on the client‘s

own papers and the correspondence about the complaint to

understand the background.

5. It seems that the police advised the client to go to a citizens

advice bureau. The client had reported problems with a former

employer. He believed the company had been infiltrated by

persons who were engaged in crime and harassing him. He

had also asked for advice about the job centre, since his

eligibility for unemployment benefits depended on why he had

left that employment.

6. On 19 February 2007, the central Liverpool bureau arranged

for the client to see a solicitor at the bureau on 27 February.

The session was not long enough for the client to explain the

problems fully. The solicitor‘s note says that the client might

have a harassment claim but she had advised that it might be

preferable for him to consult someone who could advise on the

criminal aspect, too. She would discuss this with a colleague.

The client says that, after the interview, the solicitor wrote to

3

him from her firm and said that they could help with a complaint

of harassment and the charges would be £140 per hour.

7. On 20 March, the client went back to the bureau to ask about

legal aid and the circumstances in which he would need a

solicitor who was expert in criminal matters. The bureau has

no record of the client‘s visit on 20 March but agrees that they

arranged for him to speak to a solicitor on the telephone.

Neither the bureau nor the solicitor told the client the solicitor‘s

name or firm. The solicitor said that the client would need a

solicitor expert in criminal matters only if he was charged with a

criminal offence. Otherwise, crime was dealt with through the

police. The solicitor referred the client to the Community Legal

Service‘s Legal Aid Calculator, to find out whether he was

eligible for legal aid. However, when the client looked into this,

he found that because he was self-employed the calculator did

not help. It said he would need to go a legal adviser for advice

about eligibility and the place to get advice was the CAB.

8. So the client went back to the CAB, who arranged an

appointment with a solicitor at the bureau for 5 April. Before

the appointment, the client went back to the solicitor he had

seen in February. She told him that her firm never got legal aid

for employment cases and only accepted payment from private

funds. The client felt confused and decided to attend the

appointment at the CAB and contact the firm again after that.

9. On 5 April the client arrived in time for his appointment at 1.30.

It was lunchtime and the bureau was closed, but he was

admitted after —buzzing“ twice. The client says he was left

4

alone in the reception area for some minutes and the area was

poorly lit. The bureau unit coordinator then arrived and

explained that the solicitor who was expected to attend had

cancelled. He gave the client a telephone number and

suggested he telephone the firm and ask if they could help by

telephone. The coordinator did not know the name of the

solicitor who had cancelled. Again the bureau has no record of

the client‘s visit.

10. The client went home and tried to telephone the firm but the

number did not work and the firm was not listed in the yellow

pages. He telephoned the CAB and was given the correct

number. The number he had been given was a fax number.

The client telephoned the firm again. His call was transferred

to a legal adviser who said: his complaint was outside the three

month time limit though the employment tribunal could extend

its time limits in exceptional circumstances; only the solicitor

dealing with the case could advise about legal aid; and the firm

took only trade union cases. The solicitor gave the client

details of a firm that acted on the basis of contingency fees.

11. On 10 April, the client contacted the solicitor he had previously

met at the bureau who said that the time limit for harassment

cases was longer than three months. He expected the firm to

contact him but they did not do so. When he approached them

again on 24 April he was told: it would cost £250 for an

interview; there could be no payment plan; his case was not an

employment case; and he could approach the Law Society.

5

THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS

The procedure at Stage One

12. The first stage of the national complaints procedure is a review

by the bureau concerned. The procedure stipulates, among

other things:

Once a complaint has been received, a letter of

acknowledgement must be sent to the complainant within five

working days. The complainant must be told who is dealing

with the complaint, what action is being taken, and when s/he

can expect to receive a full reply œ the target time is 20 working

days. If it is unlikely that this target will be met, then the client

must be informed in writing and given an indication of when the

review will be complete.

The bureau manager should undertake the investigation œ or

oversee it if it is carried out by another member of staff. If the

complaint is against the manager then the chair or a

designated member of the bureau trustee board will need to

investigate, in effect jumping straight to Stage Two.

If the matter is complex and will take longer than originally

indicated, write to the complainant explaining the reasons why

and including an indication of when a response can be

expected.

The full response to the complaint must inform complainants of

their right to ask for a review of the investigation if they are not

6

satisfied with the outcome of Stage One and of how to access

the second stage

13. The guidance for bureaux contains a checklist of good

investigative practice. Among other things, this says:

Ensure that the person undertaking the investigation is not

implicated in the complaint.

What happened at Stage One

14. On 18 May, the client telephoned the complaints officer at

national Citizens Advice and on 23 May he sent her his

complaint by e-mail with other material by post. The

complaints were specified within a lengthy document that also

included much information about the client‘s concerns about

the employer and other related matters.

15. The complaints officer attempted to contact the Liverpool

bureau coordinator by phone but they kept missing each other

and on 29 May she forwarded the complaint by e-mail. The

coordinator replied next day that he had located the file and

remembered meeting the client. On 31 May, the complaints

officer sent the complaint to the bureau manager to handle in

accordance with the standard complaints procedure. The

same day the complaints officer e-mailed the client to say that

the bureau manager would investigate and send her findings in

20 working days.

16. On 5 and 27 July, the client e-mailed the complaints officer to

say he had received no answer from the bureau. On 3 and 22

7

August, the client e-mailed the chief executive of Citizens

Advice to say he had received no answer. The first

communication he received after the complaints officer‘s e-mail

of 31 May was an automated reply from the chief executive‘s

office on 22 August saying that he would be away from the

office until 30 August.

17. On 28 August, the complaints officer e-mailed the Liverpool

coordinator about the complaint. He replied that he had

investigated and recently forwarded his findings to the bureau

manager who was on leave until later that week. On 6

September the coordinator sent a full reply to the client,

commenting on each aspect of the complaint. He sent a copy

of the reply to the bureau manager and concluded by saying

that if the client was not satisfied he could ask for a review by

the Chair of the bureau whom he could write to at the bureau‘s

address.

The procedure at Stage Two

18. Stage Two of the complaints process is a review under the

direction of the bureau trustee board. The procedure says that

the process to be followed is similar to the process for Stage

One but the lead person conducting the review is the Chair of

the board or a designated sub-committee. The same target

timetable applies as at Stage One, namely five days to

acknowledge a request and 20 working days to complete the

review. The complainant must be informed that if they are not

satisfied with the outcome of the review they can ask for a

further review under the direction of the Citizens Advice chief

8

executive by writing to the chief executive at the Citizens

Advice Central Office.

What happened at Stage Two

19. On 7 October the client e-mailed the bureau at

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk, an address that the client says

he obtained from the bureau website, and asked what e-mail

address he should use for the Chair. The message bounced

back as undeliverable. On 8 October he e-mailed the

coordinator, repeating the request and explaining that he had

tried to send a message to the address on the website but it

was not working.

20. The coordinator replied on 22 October. He apologised for the

delay and explained he had been out of the office for two

weeks. He provided another e-mail address,

bureau@liverpoolcab.org. On 27 October, the client e-mailed

the Chair at that address, asking him to review the complaint

and explaining under each point why he was not satisfied with

the coordinator‘s response.

21. On 26 November, the client e-mailed the Chair at the bureau

again as he had received no reply to his request of 27 October.

22. My copy of the Chair‘s reply is not dated but I am told it was

sent on 14 December. The Chair commented on each of the

points in the complaint and ended by saying that the client

could ask for a further review under the direction of the chief

executive of Citizens Advice by writing to the complaints officer

at the national office.

9

The procedure at Stage Three

23. The procedure states that the aim of this stage of the

procedure is to check that the fundamental issues have been

explored and the process followed properly. The Stage Three

review will not comment on the advice given. It is conducted

under the direction of the chief executive but delegated to an

appropriate individual.

24. On receiving a request, Citizens Advice will acknowledge it

within five working days and explain the purpose of the review.

The bureau should send the file to the Central Office within five

days of a request and the target time for communicating the

outcome of the review is 20 working days from receipt of the

file. The letter should explain that the complainant can ask for

a review by the independent adjudicator and the remit of such

a review.

What happened at Stage Three

25. On 11 February, the client e-mailed the Head of Advice Policy

and Standards. He said he had not contacted the complaints

officer, as the Chair had advised him, because she had not

answered the e-mails he sent in July when the bureau did not

answer within the promised timescale. He therefore sent the

Head of Advice Policy the details of his complaint.

26. The complaints officer obtained from the bureau a copy of the

Chair‘s reply to the client, the earlier correspondence about the

complaint and the solicitor‘s case note from 27 February 2007.

On 18 February, she e-mailed the client to confirm that a

review would be conducted under the direction of the chief

10

executive, that it would focus on how the complaint was

handled locally, and a full response would be sent by 14 March

or any delay explained.

27. The complaints officer sent the client the chief executive‘s

review on 14 March. The chief executive‘s letter ended by

explaining the availability and purpose of a review by the

independent adjudicator.

Stage Four

28. The client replied to the chief executive in two e-mails on 14

March. He said that he would like to have an independent

review as there were a number of points that still troubled him.

He explained what these were.

29. I received the file by post on 20 March, the day before the

Easter weekend. I e-mailed the client on 1 April inviting him to

contact me by 11 April if he wished to add any more

information. I have not heard from him.

The question of fairness

30. I have explained that it is not for me to say whether a

complaint is justified or whether I agree with the response. In

considering whether a complaint has been treated fairly, I look

to see whether it has been treated seriously, whether those

responding have taken trouble to understand the complainant‘s

point of view, and whether the replies are consistent with any

other material, such as case records. If there is a conflict

about the facts, I want to be sure that the complainant has had

a fair hearing and that the responses are not unfairly

11

prejudiced in favour of what the staff say rather than what the

complainant says. I also bear in mind that what usually

happens is not necessarily what happened on a particular

occasion.

31. It is also right to say that I look for a proportionate response,

taking into account the bureau‘s resources and the other

demands on these. The complaints procedure is not a court of

law. I do not expect a forensic examination of every difference

of recollection. It is not unusual for different people genuinely

to remember the same events slightly differently. Overall, I

expect bureaux to approach criticisms with an open mind, not

defensively, and to reflect the principles stated in national

complaints procedure that:

Citizens Advice and all Citizens Advice bureaux take

complaints seriously. Complaints give us the opportunity to put

things right and the lessons learned can often influence bureau

practice.

32. I have set out below a brief summary of the client‘s complaints,

the responses he received at each stage and his comments on

those responses.

33. In connection with the interview with the solicitor on 27

February, the client says that the bureau should have

explained the legal aid scheme to him before the interview, that

he was not told that the interview was limited to 30 minutes,

and that he ought to have been told that the solicitor‘s firm did

not accept money from legal aid.

12

34. At stage one, the coordinator said that it was the bureau‘s

usual practice when booking appointments with the duty

solicitors to make clear that it was a —free first half hour“ and

they did not take responsibility for advising clients about their

legal aid entitlements when booking solicitor appointments.

The bureau was not responsible for the actions of the solicitor

after the first half hour at the bureau.

35. In connection with his visit to the bureau on 20 March, the

client says that he was not given sufficient opportunity to

explain the two issues on which he wanted advice. He was

simply given access to speak to an unidentified private solicitor

on the telephone and no adviser was available to speak to him

when he came off the telephone.

36. The coordinator‘s reply said that it was not the bureau‘s

responsibility that the solicitor did not give her name. It was

probable that no adviser had been available to see the client

on 20 March so he had been allowed to talk to a solicitor and

referred to the legal aid calculator as at least some

”signposting‘ advice.

37. In connection with the arrangements for legal advice on 5 April,

the client said that when the duty solicitor was not available at

the time of his appointment he would have preferred an

alternative appointment to see a duty solicitor at the bureau

instead of being given a phone number (which was wrong) and

no reference or contact details to quote when he telephoned

the firm. Moreover, the solicitor he spoke to said he could not

advise about legal aid on the telephone and the client

13

understood (wrongly as it turned out) that the firm was not

based in Liverpool.

38. The coordinator said that there was no alternative appointment

available until May, whereas duty solicitors who cancelled

usually saw or spoke to the clients who had appointments

either the same day or shortly afterwards. He said he had

been conscious that time limits were important in employment

cases. The coordinator said he did not know the name of the

solicitor who should have attended. The firms sent different

representatives and the firm had telephoned to say no one was

available. The bureau left the question of legal aid eligibility to

the solicitors. The coordinator apologised for giving the client

the fax number by mistake. He said the firm was in Liverpool

3.

39. In connection with his reception at the bureau on 5 August, the

client said that the fact that the bureau seemed to be closed

and was poorly lit, and the fact he was left alone in reception

for some time, gave an unprofessional impression.

40. The coordinator said that the lights were partly off as the

bureau was closed for lunch and he had switched them on

when he began speaking to the client. He acknowledged that

perhaps they should have been fully switched on to create a

professional atmosphere.

41. In his request for a review by the Chair, the client

acknowledged the apology about the fax number and that the

solicitors‘ firm he spoke to when his appointment was

14

cancelled was based in Liverpool. He explained why he had

thought otherwise. He reiterated that he felt he should not

have been left to phone the firm without some form of contact

details and would have preferred another appointment. He

said that as he was unemployed it should have been obvious

to the bureau that he ought not to have been referred to a

solicitor who only took work that was privately-funded. He said

he had not been told that the free interview was for only 30

minutes. When a solicitor telephoned him at the bureau on 20

March, the adviser had not let him explain properly what he

needed and the client thought it wrong that a solicitor

telephoning him at the CAB did not introduce herself, in case

there was any future problem about possible wrong advice. He

did not agree that the coordinator had turned on the lights

immediately and he explained his memory of what happened.

He related other incidents that occurred at the bureau and on

his way there and afterwards which, in combination with his

reception at the bureau, had made him uneasy.

42. In his review, the Chair set out his understanding of the

complaint under nine main points. He emphasised that the

coordinator did not book a fresh appointment when the solicitor

cancelled on 5 April because of the risk that the client would

miss legal deadlines. He explained that the solicitors who

attended the bureau did so on a voluntary basis through their

firms and the bureau usually knew only the name of the firm,

not who would represent them any particular occasion. He

apologised for any unprofessional impression created by the

lights being partly switched off. He said it was the solicitor‘s

15

responsibility, not the bureau‘s, to inform clients about legal

aid.

43. The chief executive‘s review summarised the sequence of

events following the client‘s meeting with the duty solicitor in

February. He then gave his conclusions, expressing concern

about delay in dealing with the complaint at stage one and

stage two, and the absence of case records documenting the

client‘s dealings with the bureau, and he acknowledged the

lack of responsiveness from the Central Office to the client‘s e-

mails in July and August. He apologised both for delays in

dealing with the initial complaint and the lack of response from

Central Office and said he certainly upheld the complaint in

those respects. He said, however, that he believed the bureau

had responded fully to the issues in the complaint. He

commented that bureaux have to find ways of coping with the

demand for their advice services and it was not inappropriate

for bureaux to work closely with local solicitors to help provide

advice.

44. In his request for an independent review, the client explained

that his reception at the bureau on 5 April had made him

uneasy, partly because of other incidents on the way to the

bureau and afterwards. He explained that because the police

had advised him to go to the bureau to get the issues heard in

the Crown Court he had thought that the service was part of

the Government and everything would be free. If he had

known that he would have to pay for solicitors, he would have

gone back to the police and complained. He suspected a plot

between the CAB and the police to obstruct his case. The

16

client said that the advice from the two firms of solicitors was

contradictory. The second firm said his employment case was

too late but the first firm said there was a longer time limit for

harassment cases.

ADJUDICATOR‘S CONCLUSIONS

45. I am asked to say whether this complaint has been dealt with in

line with the national complaints procedure and fairly.

46. The time limits for correspondence were not complied with.

The chief executive acknowledged this and apologised, but the

failure was spectacular. The procedure says that complaints

will be acknowledged in five working days and a full response

sent in 20 working days or an explanation given. Apart from an

automated ”out of office‘ response, no communication was sent

to the client from 31 May until he received an e-mail from the

coordinator a full three months later on 6 September. And this

was despite the client‘s four courteous enquiries in July and

August.

47. At the second stage (for which the target times are similar), the

client‘s request reached the bureau on 27 October. There

appears to have been no acknowledgement, and the full reply

was sent some six weeks later.

48. I do not know why the service, both locally and nationally,

neglected to reply to the client, as common courtesy, never

mind the procedure, required. It may be because the client

preferred to communicate by e-mail rather than by post that the

17

messages ”slipped through the net‘ and the usual standards

were not observed. But e-mail is increasingly used in place of

formal letters. Organisations have to adapt to ensure that e-

mails are subject to the same deadlines and disciplines as

letters would be.

49. There is one respect in which the procedure might be clearer.

When the complaints officer refers a complaint to be dealt with

locally at stage one, in my experience, the bureau usually

sends a letter of acknowledgement to the complainant,

explaining what will happen and when. I think it desirable that

they should, but perhaps the Liverpool bureau thought the

message to the client from the complaints officer was sufficient.

When next the guidance is reviewed, Citizens Advice may wish

to make sure that it is clear whether bureaux are expected to

send their own acknowledgement to complainants when a

complaint has been referred by the central office.

50. The stage one response also departed from the procedure in

another respect. The procedure states that the first stage

investigation will normally be by the bureau manager and that

the person undertaking the investigation should not be

someone who is implicated in the complaint. The complaint

was in part about the actions of the coordinator. According to

the procedure, the coordinator should not have been

responsible for the stage one reply.

51. None of the correspondence from Citizens‘ Advice mentions

the e-mail address that the client used unsuccessfully to try to

contact the Chair, and which he says he obtained from the

18

website. I do not know why the problem occurred but I see that

the e-mail address currently listed on the website for the

bureau is the correct address.

52. Was the complaint dealt with fairly? I am sorry to say that I

think the delays and failures to reply to correspondence in

themselves amount to unfair treatment towards a client who

was obviously worried. That apart, when replies were sent,

they all seem conscientious, thorough and fair. The client has

commented on his experience of the service. He does not find

some of the explanations he has been given satisfactory but

that does not mean they are unfair. It is however helpful for

any public service to see a customer‘s eye view.

ADJUDICATOR‘S RECOMMENDATIONS

53. Although there were deficiencies in how the complaint was

dealt with, there is no reason for me to ask for any further

investigation of it. However Citizens Advice may wish to:

• ensure that when the guidance is next reviewed it is clear

as to whether bureau should send their own

acknowledgement to complainants at stage one of the

procedure when the complaint has also been

acknowledged by central office;

• consider why the client‘s messages were left so long

without reply and whether any additional advice or

19

protocols are required when complainants communicate

by e-mail.

Barbara Stow

Independent Adjudicator 24 April 2008

From: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
To: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:44:25 +0100
Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice

Dear Mr Eribsskog

I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.

I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within the next two weeks when they have considered the report.

Yours sincerely

Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice

Dear Mr Ribsskog

When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review by today, 18 April.

I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.

I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the end of next week.

Yours sincerely

Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Barbara Stow
To: Erik Ribsskog
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
Subject: Citizens Advice

Dear Mr Ribsskog

I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.

I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say whether it has been considered properly.

Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.

If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know at the e-mail address above.

I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to add to what you have explained already.

Yours sincerely

Barbara Stow
Independent Adjudicator