Agenda item

1.    The Commissioner introduced the paper outlining the level of correspondence received and managed by her office.  The Commissioner explained that it was important to look beyond the figures and consider the complexities and detailed decision-making involved in effectively managing all the different types of correspondence received.

2.    The Commissioner explained that all correspondence had to be responded to effectively; this meant that it was not a simple matter of a response being sent back and that a significant amount of case management was involved.  This could take the form of making suitable referrals to the appropriate partner agency or Kent Police and then either using the response provided to update the member of the public, or following up subsequently to confirm that appropriate action has been taken.

3.    The Commissioner explained that given the emotive and complex nature of the criminal justice system, her office regularly deals with irate members of the public, some of whom are bringing repeat or vexatious complaints to her attention, which have already been addressed appropriately through the accepted protocols.  In addition, a number of callers and correspondents experience mental health issues which can require careful handling by the officers.  This has prompted her staff to undergo further training in effective communication, and also some have been specifically trained on understanding mental health conditions.  The Commissioner highlighted this as an example of how well her staff has managed the complexities of ongoing communication with the public on policing issues.

4.    The Commissioner was positive about the role her office plays in being a conduit for information and referrals to appropriate services and partner agencies and was confident that her office handled the sizeable and complex correspondence well.

5.    The Commissioner expressed her gratitude to the public for corresponding with her office and to her officers for their exemplary professionalism in dealing with the large amount of correspondence and telephone enquiries that required careful management and swift action.

6.    A Member raised a concern regarding the risk of inappropriately labelling correspondents as vexatious due to calling repeatedly.  Laura Steward, OPCC Head of Standards and Regulation, explained that the individual was not labelled as vexatious or repeat but rather the issue they raised, if appropriate, could be deemed to be so.  This was only the case where complaints or issues were repeatedly raised after they have been appropriately addressed or were being dealt with by another agency and further action by the Commissioner or her office would be inappropriate.

7.    A discussion took place in which members questioned the accuracy of the initial report that claimed that the PCC's office dealt with 9000 pieces of correspondence when officer investigation had suggested that 76% of this was immediately referred to Kent Police for handling. 

8.    Firstly the Commissioner and her Chief of Staff explained that, the 9000 figure did not include daily email communications as part of normal business but referred instead to direct contact from the public and relevant partner agencies relating to specific issues requiring action. 

9.    Secondly, when it was suggested that the Commissioner’s office only dealt with 24%) of her correspondence, the Commissioner stated that while it was often the case that the correspondence related to operational matters and as such had to be referred to the Force, the OPCC still had to review and confirm this in every case which took up staff time and involved research, and the member of the public was always contacted by the Office.  In addition, all referrals were followed up with residents by the OPCC to confirm that appropriate action had been taken by the Force or other partner agency.  Mr Stepney stressed that while the OPCC may not take direct action on all correspondence, significant work was undertaken to ensure that any concerns expressed by those communicating with the OPCC were appropriately addressed.

10. A Member referenced one of the purposes of Police and Crime Commissioners in terms of the need to make policing more democratically accountable, suggesting that a good method of improving wider involvement in the management of public complaints would be to ensure information is made available that categorises the complaints and correspondence received by the Force and the Commissioner’s office in a manner that gives a good indication of the key issues and developing trends.

11. The Commissioner agreed that having an effective system of categorising and managing complaints is vital and assured the Panel that such a system was in development.

12. Laura Steward explained that the main type of complaint against the Force was ‘Other neglect or failure in duty’ in terms of crime investigations or not keeping victims updated.  Ms Steward stated that the Force was aware of this trend and that action was being taken by the Force to identify root causes and address any significant issues.

13. The Commissioner explained that her office discusses police complaints with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on a regular basis to ensure shared understanding of key trends and issues.  The Commissioner also clarified that her office may only refer complaints to the IPCC if they are against the Commissioner or the Chief Constable, and meet the relevant criteria.  All other police complaints are dealt with internally through the Force’s Professional Standards Department or referred to the IPCC by the Force if required.

14. Laura Steward further commented that resident dissatisfaction issues raised with the Commissioner’s office are referred to the Force but are followed up thoroughly through the OPCC’s case management system.

RESOLVED that the Panel thank the Commissioner for her report and note its contents.