PKC complaints system is skewedtowardsstaff

A relative recently lodged a complaint with PKC about a service provided.

It was rejected.

The process has two stages. The second is only activated if the complainant is dissatisfied with the result of the first.

Decisions are made solely by council staff. Few would trust these to be objective. As a former local government official I would not.

Ones first loyalty is to other staff. Whatever you think of them, it is not acceptable to criticise them publicly.

The responses to this complaint at both stages were, I judge, highly biased in favour of the staff complained about.

The qualifications of the officials deciding the matter were not disclosed and it was clear that they did not really understand the issues.

One can hardly expect staff dealing with complaints to understand complex issues in areas such as education, engineering ,social work and planning.

These should be dealt with by specialists in these services.

Such cannot sensibly be drawn from the authority’s own staff since they would be required to judge their departmental colleagues .

Stage two complaints should be handled by persons with relevant expertise from outside the authority.

This would greatly increase confidence in decisions.

An appeal can be made to the Ombudsman. However, it may take several months to make a decision which may be flawed. The staff are widely thought to be biased in favour of public bodies.

Elected persons are rarely involved in these matters and seldom know anything about them.

In the interests of democracy this should change. Complainants should be able to present their case to a committee of councillors.

This, moreover, would benefit the latter since it greatly increase their awareness of what is happening in the organisation.

Walter Markham

Dunkeld Rd

Perth