Agenda item

A joint presentation will be given by TVP Professional Standards Department (D/C/Supt Colin Paine and from the Office of the PCC, Vicki Waskett.

The Panel was provided with a report and presentations on the recent reforms to the police complaints system which came into effect on 1 February 2020.

Members were reminded that following the implementation of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, Part 2 of the Act reformed the national police complaints and disciplinary systems.

Colin Paine, Detective Chief Superintendent and Head of Professional Standards Department (PSD) attended the meeting and provided details on the operational impact of the reforms to the PSD.

PSD

The main issues raised were:

·       The new complaints system focused on forces not individuals;

·       There was a strong focus on learning and improvement

·       Introduction of ‘reflective practice’. This was the ability to reflect on your actions and improve the way you worked. In order to get the most out of it the participating officer must be willing to continually assess their own practice.

·       Officers could directly be referred into Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures

·       Misconduct sanctions available now included extended written warnings and reduction in rank

·       All complaints/expressions of dissatisfaction needed to be recorded or logged

·       All complaints were subject to a ‘reasonable and proportionate’ investigation. IOPC Statutory Guidance 2020 states forces needed “to complete a reasonable and proportionate investigation”. This meant weighing up the matters seriousness and its potential for learning, against the efficient use of policing resources, to determine the extent and nature of the matters handling and outcome.

·       A reasonable and proportionate response included providing a clear and evidence-based rationale for any decisions made.

·       New definition of a complaint – much broader than before. A complaint was “Any expression of dissatisfaction with a police force which is expressed (whether in writing or otherwise) by or on behalf of a member of the public”

·       A formal complaint was one which was recorded under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act and was recorded because the complainant expressly wished it to be so recorded.

·       Informal Complaints – These were low level expressions of dissatisfaction/underperformance that could generally be resolved at the point of call. There were no fixed processes for dealing with expressions of dissatisfaction and if the complainant was satisfied at the end of the call then the matter was considered resolved.

·       Under the new regulations the Home Office have given a provision to deal with complaints outside the formal complaint process. These were Schedule 3 complaints, which meant the rules of schedule 3 did not apply.

·       Complaint reviews (formerly appeals) were now carried out by the OPCC

The Panel was informed that the new complaints process came into effect on 1st February 2020. Any matters brought to the attention of PSD before this date would be dealt with under the 2012 regulations. It was anticipated that there would be a need to run two complaint processes alongside each other for approximately 12 months.

Reference was made to prolific complainants and the Panel was informed that such complainants created disproportionate demand. The IOPC had produced guidance on handling repetitious and vexatious complainants.

The PSD put in place communication plans with the most demanding complainants.

There had been a 57% increase in complaints recorded this year which was similar to other sized forces, although some forces had seen increases of up to 400%.

The PSD had put additional resources into complaints recording, had simplified the recording process and developed robotics to assist with recording. A small ‘Complaints Resolution Team’ had been established to tackle low seriousness complaints quickly with almost 50% of all new complaints resolved this way.

PCC

Waskett, Head of Governance and Compliance at the Office of the PCC, attended the meeting and informed the Panel that under the new regulations the PCC had the responsibility for the reviews of the outcome of complaints (formerly appeals)

The review right gave the complainant 28 days in which to contest the findings of the investigation. The review considered whether the investigation and outcome of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The Panel was informed that one year on from the introduction of the new reforms and the OPCC taking on responsibility for undertaking ‘reviews’ of the outcome of police complaints, there had been 189 requests for a review, with 111 reviews completed and 5 reviews having been upheld.

Examples of types of complaints included:

·       Disputes between neighbours, due to COVID restrictions.

·       Allegations of Officers breaching COVID restrictions; being too tough, or not tough enough

·       Complaints about Custody e.g. detainees’ confiscation of mobile phones or not being able to keep their mask on in a cell.

In some cases, where complainants were believed to be, or become vexatious, communications strategies would be put in place. Individuals would be informed prior to any action being taken and the reasons for a communication strategy being implemented. However, where OPCC staff safety or welfare was being threatened due to unreasonable behaviour, the individual may not receive prior warning.

The Panel was informed that the number of requests for reviews received had resulted in extra workload for the OPCC and due to current sickness absence within PSD, this work had now been reallocated to the OPCC.

Questions

1.       Reference was made to historical complaints which escalated through the whole complaints process and through to the Police and Crime Panel. The PCC was asked if complainants were given realistic expectations in relation to complaints which were forwarded to the PCP as many were clearly vexatious, and abuse of the process and without merit.

[The Head of Governance and Compliance at the Office of the PCC replied that some complaints were historical and very detailed and it was felt important that the PCP had all the background paperwork for the complaints to enable Members to have the full context of the complaint. It was agreed, however, that consideration would be given to looking at a way of dealing with such complaints which clearly fell outside the remit of PCP complaints and to manage complainant’s expectations.]

2.       The work of the Complaints Resolution Team within PSD seems key in terms of a quick resolution of some complaints. Does this involve officers speaking to complainants and if so, can this more informal approach be replicated in other areas to resolve complaints i.e. complaints to OPCC?

[The Head of PSD replied that the use of personal contact improved effectiveness and usually would produce a resolution.]

3.       Could more temporary resource be put into the PSD to cover staff absences rather than increase the burden for the Office for the PCC? What is the reason for the problem of sickness absence within PSD?  

[The Panel was provided with details and Members were informed that other options had been explored for this temporary arrangement.]

RESOLVED – That the officers be thanked for their presentation and the information provided be noted.