Complaints Handling

1. Introduction

As the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire, I know that our police officers and staff work incredibly hard to serve our communities. Whilst they endeavour to deliver an outstanding service to all the county’s residents and communities, I know that on occasions this unfortunately does not always happen and sometimes mistakes are made, and public expectations not met.

I am therefore determined to ensure that any errors are quickly rectified, and lessons are swiftly learnt. This will serve to increase public confidence in the conduct of the force’s officers and staff and improve the service that Warwickshire Police provides to meet the needs of the county’s diverse communities.

I hope that the following information and narrative will illuminate the important subject of police complaints, and in doing so provide reassurance as to the guidance processes, scrutiny and assurance that is applied to both the force and my own performance in this critical area of police legitimacy and accountability.

Philip Seccombe

Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire

2. Specified Information Order

The Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) (Amendment) Order 2021 requires the Police and Crime Commissioner to publish a link on their websites to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) annual statistics report and publish the most recent quarterly complaints data for their force. The data and reports are to be published within one month of publication by the IOPC and reviewed quarterly.

At the time of publishing by the Commissioner, a narrative must also be provided   setting out how the Commissioner is ‘holding to account’ the Chief Constable for the complaint handling performance of the police force, together with an assessment of the Commissioner’s own performance in carrying out certain statutory complaint handling functions.

This report specifically encompasses both the IOPC annual statistics for 2022/23, together with the IOPC Q1 2024/25 data.

3. Annual complaint statistics

On 5 October 2023, the IOPC published its report ‘Police Complaints statistics for England and Wales report – 2022/2023’. It can be viewed at: –

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications/police-complaints-statistics-england-and-wales-report-202223

The Acting IOPC Director General provided the following comments on the report:

“Our annual police complaints statistics broadly reflect public concern with day-to-day policing issues and the level of service that people directly experience, rather than high-profile police misconduct cases that have repeatedly dominated news headlines. 

It is notable that by far the most commonly recorded complaint type continues to relate to police service delivery such as a lack of updates or delays in responses, rather than concerns around police misconduct.

While needing to be treated with caution, this year’s figures suggest more complaints are being dealt with more quickly, as the new system intended, with fewer resulting in lengthy investigations. In many lower-level cases, investigations are being replaced with responses that are more proportionate with relevant explanations and apologies. I am pleased the figures indicate that over nine in ten people whose complaint was handled informally had it resolved to their satisfaction or did not wish to pursue it any further. 

It is also welcome that police forces have significantly improved how quickly they respond to complainants. I recognise there is more work needed to properly embed new ways of working in all forces to ensure we deliver a complaints system that is accessible for all, more straightforward, and better aligned to the needs of the complainant. 

I would encourage police forces, where possible, to focus on learning for individuals and themselves as an outcome. I believe that learning from reflection represent positive actions resulting from complaint cases and can help to prevent issues re-occurring. 

I would like to see the numbers of reviews requested reduce in the future and we will continue to work closely with forces and provide further handling guidance to help them get complaints right first time. I am heartened that this year’s figures indicate we are moving in the right direction in establishing a healthy complaints system, where people have confidence to raise concerns in the knowledge they will be taken seriously.” 

4. Responsibilities

Complaints made against Warwickshire Police are primarily handled by the force’s Professional Standards Department (PSD), under the delegated responsibility of the Chief Constable. The IOPC has a statutory responsibility for investigating a small number of these complaints in circumstances where the allegations are deemed to be more serious and / or sensitive.

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire has a responsibility to ‘hold to account’ the Chief Constable for the strategic performance of Warwickshire Police – including complaint handling. Also, for conducting ‘complaint reviews’ for certain categories of complaints in circumstances where there remains dissatisfaction.

5. Holding to account

The principal mechanism for the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to ‘hold to account’ the Chief Constable for the performance of Warwickshire Police is through the monthly Governance Scrutiny Board (GSB), which is also attended by senior officers from the police force and members of staff from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

In addition to this strategic performance meeting, as part of the OPCC’s assurance arrangements regular meetings are held between the PCC and the Head of PSD to discuss performance issues to ensure that the OPCC and PSD teams work together to ensure that continuous improvement is made to the way in which complaints and complaint reviews are handled. At the meeting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are provided for discussion, including metrics on: –

• the number of complaints recorded.
• the timeliness of the response to complainants.
• those complaints requiring a proportionate handling under Schedule 3 of the legislation.
• the proportion of complaints that are subject to ‘service recovery’ outside of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
• any reoccurring themes identified from complaints and complaint reviews.

To complement these meetings and provide additional scrutiny and assurance, a system of dip-sampling of complaint cases is undertaken by the OPCC in conjunction with an independent member of the Joint Audit and Standards Committee (JASC). To provide further independent scrutiny and assurance a joint report on ‘standards and ethics’ is submitted by the OPCC and PSD for consideration by the JASC.

6. Complaint handling

Some of the key performance metrics from the IOPC annual statistics report 2022/23 are: –

6.1. Complaints made

In February 2020, significant changes were made to the complaints system including widening the definition of a complaint to “any dissatisfaction with the police service”. As a result, more complaints have been logged than in previous years. The system also allows for more complaints to be handled informally, where appropriate, such as by an apology or explanation. A person can request a review if they are unhappy with the way their complaint was handled.

6.2 Complaint type

The IOPC records a broad range of categories as to the topic of a complaint.

6.3. Timeliness

The time taken to finalise a complaint varies according to whether it is dealt with outside of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 as a ‘service recovery’ matter or handled under Schedule 3 of the Act or handled ‘otherwise than by investigation’ (OTBI) under the same legislation.

7. Complainant satisfaction

Complainant satisfaction is assessed based on the outcome of complaint. For less serious complaints it is measured by PSD’s rate of ‘service recovery’ that operates outside of Schedule 3 Police Reform Act 2002.

Where the complaint cannot be resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction then it is dealt with under Schedule 3 and consequently subject to either a reasonable proportionate investigation or handled Otherwise Than By Investigation (OTBI). The complainant is then afforded a right to review to the ‘relevant review body’, namely either the OPCC (as the Local Policing Body) or the IOPC depending upon the nature of the allegations.

8.  Complaint reviews

In February 2020, the ‘Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020’ came into effect. These reforms are aimed at making the police complaints system more responsive, independent and customer focused. The intention is to remove the focus of attributing blame when things occasionally go wrong, to one of learning and service improvement.

8.1 Complaint review

The OPCC for Warwickshire is mandated to conduct complaint reviews as a Relevant Review Body. During the period 2022/23, the OPCC received a total of 32 applications for a complaint review and completed 37 reviews within this same period.

All recommendations or learning derived from a complaint review are forwarded to Warwickshire Police for consideration and tracked by the OPCC to their conclusion.

8.2 Quality assurance

In January 2022, the OPCC policies and processes in respect of complaint reviews were subject to an internal audit by Warwickshire County Council’s Audit team. A total of nine recommendations were made following the review, all of which were accepted and have now been completed. These include the production of a ‘Complaint Review Frequently Asked Questions’ report that is provided to those complaints seeking a complaint review.

8.3 Organisational learning

A complaint review will consider whether the complaint process was ‘reasonable and proportionate’, with recommendations made to the Warwickshire Police if the review is ‘upheld’. Any recommendations made to the force are monitored by the OPCC, although under the legislation the force does not have to accept the recommendations made.

Where recommendations concern a reoccurring theme or an issue of strategic importance, then the Police and Crime Commissioner is able to raise it with   the Head of PSD through existing assurance mechanisms, or with the Chief Constable through formal reporting and ‘holding to account’ arrangements.

8.4. Continuous improvement

Regular meetings are held between representatives of the OPCC and the IOPC Oversight Liaison Officer to discuss performance in respect of complaint handling and complaint reviews. The meeting also provides a useful ‘sounding board’ to discuss and resolve any procedurally complexities in conducting reviews.

A Regional Practitioner’s Forum has been instigated, with a focus on complaint reviews providing an opportunity to identify themes and share good practice within the West Midlands region.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioner Chief Executives (APACE) has restarted the National Complaints Network. The network discusses complaint reviews, the holding to account responsibility, persistent complainants, and police misconduct tribunals.

Through these meetings, forums, and networks there is a real desire to work together by sharing ideas and better understand the technicalities of the legislation and how best to interpret and implement it.

9. Complaints Statistics – IOPC Data Q4 2023/24

On 29 August 2024, the IOPC published its comprehensive report ‘Police complaints information bulletin Warwickshire Police – Q1- 24-25’. The report comprised of data for the period of 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024: –

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications/police-complaints-information-bulletin-warwickshire-police-q1-24-25

In compliance with the Specified Information Order, the information contained within the IOPC bulletin has been scrutinised. The following key performance indicator, with reference to the relevant sections of the IOPC report, have been identified for Warwickshire Police: –

9.1 Contact (IOPC Section A1.1)

• The average time to log complaints was 1-day; substantially quicker than the Most Similar Forces (MSF) average of 11-days, and the national average of 6-days.
  (Note:  Warwickshire’s most similar forces are: Devon and Cornwall, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, West Mercia, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and North Wales)

9.2 Complaints and allegation (A1.1)

• The force recorded 234 complaints during Q1 2024/25; representing a 27% increase when compared to the 184 complaints recorded during the same period last year (SPLY),
• The force recorded 114 complaints per 1,000 employees; notably higher than the MSF average of 95 complaints per 1,000 employees, and the national average of 89 complaints per 1,000 employees. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 95 complaints per 1,000 employees.
• Conversely, the force recorded 123 allegations per 1,000 employees; less than the MSF average of 136 allegations per 1,000 employees, and the national average of 155 allegations per 1,000 employees. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 100 allegations per 1,000 employees.

9.3 Allegation handling and timeliness (A2 + A3.1)

Service Recovery

• Of the allegations recorded, 83% were handled as ‘service recovery’ outside of Schedule 3; substantially higher that the MSF average of 49%, and the national average of 43%.
• The average time to complete allegations handled by this method was 29-days; substantially quicker that MSF average of 52-days, but slower than the national average of 20-days. The force’s figure for SPLY was 13-days.
• The allegations were resolved in 92% of the complaints handled by this method, the predominate means of resolution was ‘Explanation’ at 65%, with ‘Apology’ at 10%.

Otherwise Than By Investigation

• The force handled 9% of allegations as OTBI under Schedule 3; compared to MSF average of 45% and the national average of 43%.
• The average time to complete allegations handled as OTBI was 106-days; compared to the MSF average of 129-days and the national average of 105-days. The force’s figure for SPLY was 86-days.
• The outcome of ‘The service provided was acceptable’ was determined in 58% of the allegations handled by this method. The predominate means of resolution was ‘Explanation’ (60%).
• The outcome of ‘the service provided was not acceptable’ accounted for 16% of the allegations handled by this method.

Investigations

• The force handled 5% of allegations under Schedule 3 as ‘investigations – not subject to special procedures’; compared to the MSF average of 5% and the national average of 11%.
• The average time to complete allegations handled as ‘investigations – not subject to special procedures’ was 160-days; compared to the MSF average of 329-days, and the national average of 208-days. The force’s figure for SPLY was 105-days.
• The outcome of ‘the service provided was acceptable’ accounted for 73% of the allegations handled by this method.
• The outcome of ‘the service provided was not acceptable’ accounted for 18% of the allegations handled by this method.

The percentages for these three methods of complaint handling are broadly consistent with those of 2023/24.

9.4. Schedule 3 reasons (A1.2)

• Of the 24 complaints recorded under Schedule 3, the Appropriate Authority made the decision to do so in 38% of the cases; compared to the MSF average of 57%, and the national average of 47%.
• Of the complaints recorded under Schedule 3, the reason for doing so in 38% of the cases was due to the complainant’s ‘dissatisfaction after initial handling’ outside of Schedule 3; compared to both the MSF and national average of 14%. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 27%.
• It is clear from the data that Warwickshire Police attempt to resolve a higher proportion of complaints as ‘service recovery’ outside of Schedule 3 than the MSF and national average – other forces more readily adopt OTBI as their preferred method of handling such complaints. This reliance on the process of ‘service recovery’ translates into the higher percentage of ‘dissatisfaction after initial handling’.

9.5. Allegations (A1.4 + A1.5)

Delivery of duties and services

• The main category of allegations was ‘Delivery of duties and services’ at 56% of all the allegations made; consistent with the MSF average of 49%, and the national average of 54%. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 75%.
• The sub-category of ‘General level of service’ accounted for 66% of this total; significantly higher than the MSF average of 25%, and national average of 34%. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 30%,
• The sub-category of ‘Police action following contact’ of 15% was significantly lower than the SPLY of 52%.
• The predominate factor for complaint was ‘Investigation’ representing 38% of all the allegations made. The was followed by ‘Arrest’ at 14% and ‘Roads / traffic’ at 13% of the total.

Individual behaviours

• The second largest category of allegations was ‘Individual behaviours’ at 19%; marginally higher that the MSF average of 15%, and the national average of 12%. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 9%.
• The sub-category of ‘Impolite and intolerant actions’ at 35% accounted for the largest percentage of this total; significantly higher than the MSF average of 17%, and the national average of 15%. The force’s figure for the SPLY was 18%.

Police powers, policies

• The third largest category of allegations was ‘Police powers, policies, and procedures’ at 12%; significantly lower than the MSF average of 23%, and the national average of 21%.
• The sub-category of ‘Power to arrest and detail’ accounted for the largest percentage (29%) of the allegations, compared to the MSF averages (17%), and the national average (18%).
• Of note is that the sub-category of ‘Detention in police custody’ at 0% was once again significantly below the MSF average of 12%, and the national average of 14%.

9.6. National complaint factors (A1.6)

This section presents information that shows what people are complaining about using a combination of allegation categories and factors against the police force. Categories capture the root of the dissatisfaction expressed in a complaint. Factors capture the situational context of the dissatisfaction expressed in a complaint. The combination of categories and factors provides a richer picture of what people are complaining about compared to the categories alone.

It is therefore clear that Investigations is by far the predominant reasons for public dissatisfaction with the police service, followed by Roads/traffic, and Call handling.

10. Complaint reviews

Where a complaint has been recorded under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, the complainant has a right to apply for a review if they are dissatisfied with the way their complaint was handled, or with its outcome. This applies whether the complaint has been subject to a local investigation or handled by OTBI.

The application for a review will be considered by the ‘Relevant Review Body’ – either the OPCC (Local Policing Body) or the IOPC, depending upon the seriousness and nature of the complaint.

10.1. IOPC data (C1)

• During Q1 2024/2025, the OPCC received 5 applications for complaint reviews, fewer than the 7 cases during the SPLY. The IOPC received 2 applications for a review. The OPCC completed 7 complaint reviews during this same period.
• The average time for the OPCC to conclude a complaint review of 43-days; shorter than the MSF average of 171-days, and the national average of 55-days.
• The average time for the IPCC to conclude a complaint review was 141-days.

10.2. OPCC data

• The OPCC also maintains its own records for its handling of complaint reviews, this data is more accurate than the IOPC data obtained from the PSD case worker system.
• During Q1 2024/25. the average time for the OPCC to conclude a complaint review was actually 19-days.
• Of the 7 reviews conducted by the OPCC, the handling and / or outcome of the complaint was found to have not been ‘reasonable and proportionate’ in 4 of these cases. This compares to the 50% of the reviews conducted by the IOPC that reached the same decision.
• In all the reviews where it was found that that the handling and / or outcome of the complaint was found to have not been ‘reasonable and proportionate’, recommendations were made by the OPCC to Warwickshire Police for either investigation, re-investigation, or remedy.
• Since the beginning of 2022/23 – when recommendations arising from the OPCC complaint reviews were tracked by the OPCC – until the end of Q1 2024/25, recommendations have been made by the OPCC to Warwickshire Police in 36 cases. Of the 72 recommendations arising from these cases, all been accepted by the force – with one exception. Of note, is that under the legislation the police service is not under any obligation to accept recommendations arising from an OPCC complaint review.

11. Assurance

11.1. Professional Standards Department

On 9 July 2024, a meeting was held between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Head of PSD, together with representatives from their respective offices. The agenda covered PSD’s responsibility for police complaints, anti-corruption, and vetting.

11.2. IOPC Liaison

On 9 August 2024, a meeting was held between the IOPC Oversight Liaison Officer and representatives from the OPCC and PSD. The issues discussed were updates from the three organisations and the IOPC performance data for Q1 2024/5. There were no matters of concern identified. A further meeting with the IOPC Liaison Officer is to be scheduled in Q2 2024/25.

11.3. Joint Audit and Standards Committee

The terms of reference for the JASC requires the committee to be enabled to have oversight and to provide an independent review of the effectiveness of the adherence to appropriate standards and ethics by Warwickshire Police, the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the Chief Constable.

On 10 July 2024, a meeting of the JASC was held at which a joint paper was submitted by the OPCC and PSD on the subject of ‘Standards and Ethics’, providing an opportunity to the committee to ‘support and challenge’ the PCC and the force on this subject.

The next meeting of the JASC is scheduled for 22 January 2024, where the same subject of ‘standards and ethics’ is on the agenda for discussion.

11.4. Complaint review dip-sampling

On 12 June 2024, a member of the JASC conducted dip-sampling of a random sample of recent complaint cases and complaint reviews conducted by PSD and the OPCC. The observations arising from this scrutiny and review were generally positive.

11.5. Ethics Committee

On 25 September 2024, a meeting of the Ethics Committee was held at which both the OPCC and PSD were represented. The Chair of the committee is Associate Professor Catherine Hale, who has an extensive background in ethics and law, from Warwick University Medical School.

Two topics of dilemma were discussed: –

1. Police Federation responsibilities during officer representation.
2. Purchase of lottery tickets by police officers and police staff whilst on duty.

12. Comments

In summary, complaint handling performance is comparatively good and the processes for learning, for both individuals and Warwickshire Police, are well established. There is therefore considerable activity, oversight, and control in respect of police complaints to provide an acceptable level of scrutiny and assurance.