Health blasted over failure to respond to complaint for six months

Thursday 25 March 2021

The Health Department has been slammed for failing to respond to a complaint about the way in which they conducted an interview for six months.

In a report released today, the Jersey Complaints Board said the department acted in a way that was “oppressive” and “contrary to the accepted principles of natural justice.”

Bradley Chambers first made a complaint regarding a job interview he had with the Health and Community Services Department during November 2019, making two attempts to complain using the gov.je site.

However, these complaints went unacknowledged – he then posted a letter at the end of the month, for which he received confirmation of receipt. 

Pictured: Mr Chambers' initial complaint was about the handling of a job interview he had with the Health and Community Services Department.

Mr Chambers then continued to ask for an update on 6, 12 and 16 December, before being informed on 17 December that the information on the complaint was being compiled.  

Having tried another two times in January and February to get understand where the investigation was at, he got in touch with the Complaints Board in March 2020, having not been able to receive any information into when his complaint might be concluded. 

On 18 March, the Complaints Board requested from Chief Operating Officer, John Quinn and the Chief Minister, a resume of their case by 24 April, so they could ascertain whether they would consider the complaint about the process. 

However, the Chief Operating Officer responded by saying that Mr Chambers hadn’t exhausted the internal complaints process and that the investigation was nearing completion.

Pictured: Mr Chambers had to wait around six months before receiving a report to his initial complaint.

On 6 May, Mr Chambers finally received a letter (dated 1 May), with a report into his initial complaint to the Health and Community Services Department, which Mr Chambers noted was the first formal correspondence he’d had on his complaint since December the prior year. 

In regards to Mr Chambers’ complaint about how long it had taken to respond though, the Deputy Greffier wrote to both the Chief Minister and the COO in July after several unanswered emails, but the enquiries still went unanswered. 

The Deputy Greffier again wrote to the Chief Minister, with the COO copied in, on 7 October, to let them know a hearing would be taking place in November, and criticising their “discourteous” failure to provide a summary of the Department’s case despite requests. 

Following this, COO John Quinn hit back saying that he did not think any further action was required as the investigation into Mr Chambers’ complaint had been concluded, adding that he did not think the topic was within the remit of the Complaints Board “as a matter of private law", and refused to co-operate or send documents.

In later correspondence in November, he acknowledged the Board would be going ahead in convening their hearing that month, but added that “by submitting papers, we would tacitly acknowledge participation in a review that we do not believe to be within the remit of the [Board].”

Pictured: Chief Operating Officer, John Quinn, questioned whether the Complaints Board had jurisdiction to investigate Mr Chambers' complaint.

Nevertheless, the Board said they would be going ahead with their hearing irrespective of whether the Chief Minister was represented.  

Eventually, the Department sent Civil Division, Law Officers’ Department director Sylvia Roberts and People and Corporate Services Associate Director Graham Charsley to attend.

Their submission included an apology to both the Board and Mr Chambers on the delays.

Representing the Chief Minister, Mr Charsley stated that at the time, the complaints would have been received by a HR team within the Health and Community Services department, whereas now they would be directed to a central HR team 

He added that if it had happened now, Mr Chambers could have expected a much “cleaner” process and had a response generally within four to eight weeks.

However, he said the department had “acknowledged that the processes were not clear and that there was an unacceptable delay in responding.”  

Upholding Mr Chambers’ complaint in its findings, the Board said that the department’s actions were “oppressive and contrary to the generally accepted principles of natural justice.” 

They recommended that the Government’s Feedback complaints process be changed to ensure a clear timetable with a ‘stop the clock’ provision. 

Furthermore, they advised that in the event of any delay, there should be an appeal process available, and that the complaint should be automatically escalated to the next stage of the process if timescales are not met. 

The Board also recommended that an annual report relating to complaints should be published.

Speaking on the investigation, Complaints Board Chair Geoffrey Crill said: “Such lack of engagement was unacceptable and unprecedented.  

“The Department also questioned whether this matter was within our remit to investigate. This was raised for the first time very late in the proceedings, many months after the complaint had first been made.”

He added: “The Department’s refusal to cooperate and submit documents for the hearing was of great concern to us. 

“It goes without saying that it was both discourteous and disrespectful to the Complaints Panel, but also to the complainant who had already waited many months for a resolution of the case.”

On this refusal, Mr Crill concluded: “That is not good governance consistent with effective and transparent administration and we were pleased that eventually a decision was taken for officers to attend.”

In a statement commenting on the report, Chief Operating Officer, John Quinn, said: “We have apologised to Mr Chambers that we did not handle his complaint according to our standard complaint procedures and that it took far longer than it should have done to respond to him. We have also apologised to the Complaints Board for the delay in responding to their requests for information.

“Since Mr Chambers made his complaint, the Government has made improvements to its  complaints handing process, including centralising  HR case management  within the People and Corporate Services team, ensuring complainants are contacted in a timely way to confirm the receipt of a complaint and providing clear outline of the process that would be followed. Normally, this should take between four to eight weeks.”