Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Casework Interest Group,

held on 22 November 2016at the Office of the Ombudsman, Dublin

Present:

Name / Office
Jane Brothwood / Adjudicator's Office
Karen Calamaro / Gibraltar Public Services Ombudsman Office
Kevin Dillon / Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC)
Tom Earley / Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR)
Jane Eldridge / Advertising Standards Authority
Jane Erskine / The Property Ombudsman
Carmel Foley / Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC)
Jonathan Francis / Independent Police Complaints Commission
Pauline Fraser / Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
Donal Galligan / Ombudsman Association (Chair)
Vicki Garside / Independent Case Examiner's Office
Sean Garvey / Office of the Ombudsman, Ireland
Joff Gray / Information Commissioner's Office
Bernie Grogan / Press Ombudsman of Ireland
Adam Harrison / Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC)
Dominic Hind / Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman (by video link)
Sean Martin / Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO)
Jacqui McCrum / Office of the Ombudsman & Information Commissioner, Ireland
Jamie McGrandles / Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO)
Damien McInerney / Local Government Ombudsman
David Millington / Financial Ombudsman Service
Mary Morgan / Information Commissioner's Office
Michael Morgan / The Dispute Service Ltd (TDS)
Pat Neeson / Commissioner for Public Appointments
Brian O’Neill / Ombudsman for the Defence Forces
Steven Pearson / Legal Ombudsman
Chris Pinnell / Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education
Rashad Qureshi / The Pensions Ombudsman
Ross Symes / Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman (by video link)
Clare Tambourini / Independent Case Examiner's Office
Nial Vivian / Queen Margaret University (QMU)
Rhiannon Williams / Public Services Ombudsman for Wales

1.Welcome and introductions

1.1Donal Galligan welcomed colleagues to the first meeting of the Casework Interest Group, thanking the Office of the Ombudsman for hosting, and noting how pleasing it was that such a broad range of members were represented, in person and via video link.

2.Purpose of Group and election of Chair

2.1A paper had been circulated setting out the background to establishing an Interest Group focused on the core work of members: casework / investigations. The Group discussed the draft terms of reference and scope of the new group.

2.2The attendees agreed that the Group’s focus should be on improving the casework of members in order to improve the service provided to service users. The draft terms of reference should be amended to reflect that.

2.3Topics that the Group agreed they should explore included: quality assurance; casework processes; developing shared policies on common practices (such as obtaining consent); early / informal intervention; exploring opportunities for joint training; caseload for caseworkers; and finding the right balance in the tension between ‘quality vs. quantity’. The Group discussed establishing sub-groups to look into the different issues.

2.4Donal Galligan reiterated that the OA’s Interest Groups are ‘self-reliant’, with the roles of chair and providing administrative support to each Group taken on by volunteers from member schemes. Volunteers to Chair the Group were asked to approach Donal outside of the meeting.

3.Open Forum

3.1The Group discussed developments and issues in their own sectors.

3.2Jacqui McCrum informed colleagues of the new jurisdictions that the Office of the Ombudsman was likely to take on, including Direct Provision, prison complaints and clinical judgment. Brian O’Neill noted that the Ombudsman for Defence Forces sometimes received complaints about military doctors, so there might be an area to share learning. PSOW noted that the majority of their complaints were about health, and the SPSO drew attention to the quality assurance systems they have in place for clinical advice.

3.3David Millington highlighted the challenge of forecasting workload and resources, especially with regard to complaints that the Financial Ombudsman Service receive about PPI, noting that the issues of proportionality were similar for all members. The Group discussed the level of complaints each received, and whether they were increasing or falling. Chris Pinnell noted that the complaints OIA received had dropped, and the question of how best to utilise staff in such a situation was raised. The Press Ombudsman noted the link between outreach / levels of awareness and levels of complaints. Tom Earley noted that CEDR had seen an enormous increase following the implementation of the ADR Directive. Michael Morgan noted that TDS’ caseload had increased year-on-year as well. Jane Brothwood highlighted the work the Adjudicator’s Office has done to inform both the Department and the public on the types of issues where the Adjudicator has upheld a complaint. It was thought that as well as managing expectations this will result in a reduction in the numbers of complaints received as both the Department and the public take that into account.

3.4Jamie McGrandles drew attention to the work that SPSO was undertaking through its Improvement Unit, in order to improve the quality of their own recommendations.

4.Caseworker training

4.1Donal Galligan gave a brief background on the draft Behaviours, Knowledge & Skills Framework for caseworkers that emerged from the OA’s Strategic Review. He noted that there was a strong consensus within the HR Interest Group that the draft Framework required further development, as it is currently a mix of both high level principles and detailed descriptions of specific skills. It was acknowledged that it would require significant investment to scope, plan, consult and deliver this. The Executive Committee would be discussing at their next meeting on 2 December how best to take this forward.

4.2The Group discussed in more detail what each member had been doing to develop their own caseworker training.

4.3Jacqui McCrum informed the Group that the Office of the Ombudsman had gone out to tender for their recent caseworker training, which was being delivered by the same provider that NIPSO had used. Jacqui noted that staff from other ombudsman offices in Ireland would also be joining the next training session in January 2017.

4.4Sean Garvey explained that the intended outcome of the training was to ensure more consistency in decision making between caseworkers. The two day training course for 50 staff included a personal assignment submitted to the trainer, on which only the caseworker received feedback, rather than it being shared with the caseworker’s manager. The training also covers evaluating evidence, the balance of probabilities and establishing something beyond reasonable doubt, including how to make that judgment.

4.5 Jane Erskine noted that the Property Ombudsman had previously done its own in-house training, but along with the Housing Ombudsman and TDS had now engaged QMU to deliver a bespoke course. Nial Vivian noted that the previous courses delivered by QMU had required updating and there was now more focus on ‘case handling’.

4.6The Group discussed the external training that their staff received on specific issues, with the Information Commissioner’s office highlighting that their staff received external training on Asperger’s and autism.

4.7 Jane Eldridge reflected the mood of the group in noting that undertaking training together would provide consistency across the OA’s members, and stressed support for the development of a shared framework.

5.OA Newsletter

5.1A paper had been circulated to the Group highlighting the forthcoming relaunch of the OA Newsletter in December. Donal Galligan reiterated that the online quarterly publication would be targeted at operational employees. He highlighted that although the Communications Interest Group was being utilised to commission articles, it would be useful for the Casework Interest Group toliaise with their colleagues in communications to engage and input to potential content of the OA Newsletter.

5.2Sean Garvey noted that the Newsletter would provide a useful mechanism for feedback between members. Brian O’Neill suggested that each issue could include a case study, similar to the content in member’s annual reports.

6.Ombudsman Association activities update

6.1Donal Galligan had circulated an update on the OA’s activities and delivery against the OA Business Plan 2016-17 in advance of the meeting. He drew attention to the forthcoming changes to the Members’ Area of the OA website, which will allow individuals to sign up for personalised alerts when notes of meetings or other new material is posted.

6.2Donal also drew attention to the OA’s 2017 Conference in Loughborough (England), which will take place on 25-26 May 2017. A document setting out initial thoughts on the plenary and workshop sessions had been circulated in advance and colleagues were asked for feedback on the proposals.

6.3Jacqui McCrum noted that presentations from speakers can sometimes go into too much detail, highlighting that ‘enthusiasm in five slides’ was what was needed. Bernie Grogan highlighted the importance of having a shared understanding about the terminology we all use, noting that because of the current disparity, different offices might have very different expectations of what the workshop on early resolution and informal resolution would focus on.

7.Any Other Business

7.1There was no other business discussed.

8.Date and location of next meeting

8.1The Group agreed to hold their next meeting in April / May, ahead of the OA Conference. Karen Calamaro offered to host the meeting at Gibraltar House in London if that was convenient.

Actions:

  • Terms of Reference to be amended to reflect the focus of the Group on improving the casework of members in order to improve the service provided to service users.
  • Volunteers to Chair the Group to approach the Director outside of the meeting.
  • Members of the Group to liaise with their colleagues in communicationsto engage and input to potential content of the OA Newsletter.

Page 1 of 4