Warwick District Council has consistently failed to meet its own complaints and and freedom of information (FOI) requests procedures according to an internal investigation.

A routine look into the council's complaints policies in early 2021 found that some systems were "weak or non-existent" whilst the council showed "non-compliance" with others.

Compiled by internal auditor Jemma Butler, the report states that both complaints and FOI requests "help to support transparent governance and enables the democratic process".

Complaints

On its website the council promises to acknowledge all complaints within three working days, and then respond within 20.

However, between January 1 2021 and August 12 the council only responded to six complaints on time (out of 24).

And the average time it took just to acknowledge a complaint was eight days – nearly three times longer than policy.

One complaint actually took nearly two months just to be acknowledged by the council.

This was then sent to the ombudsman who had to wait another two months for WDC to provide the required information.

Freedom of Information

For FOI's the council has two days to acknowledge and then 20 days to respond.

But in the same time period WDC failed to respond on time in nearly a third of cases, whilst 15 per cent of responses took more than 20 days to be completed.

The report also said: "There are particular concerns with one service area when it comes to responding to FOI requests with only one in three requests responded to on time."

It did not state which department this referred to.

As a result the auditor's report recommended that WDC review its policy for handling complaints.

This did not apply for FOI requests as a new system allowing "a more streamlined approach" is already being rolled out.

What is causing the delays?

As well as publishing the damning statistics for WDC's complaints and FOI procedures, the report also explained why responses were so "poor".

"Often this was due to the case being allocated late to an investigating officer," it stated.

"The review identified that there is a common theme of investigating officers not responding to the requesting email or staff being on leave causing a delay in the case being allocated.

"In some cases, this meant that the investigation officer only received the case a few days before a response was due to be issued."

An update to the council's finance and audit scrutiny committee last week said that the council had made progress in addressing the issues.

But Cllr Richard Dickson said at last week's meeting: "I have a concern, I sit uncomfortably as a member of this committee about finding out about something that officers new about five months ago."

Adding to Nub News: "Other councillors did not seem to share my concern that, because of the committee's reporting timelines, it had taken nearly five months for the matter to be publicly reported.

"The management action taken is good news, but I'll be seeking regular reassurances that there has been no recurrence of these problems.

"Having open and transparent access to information and prompt response to complaints are vital elements of our democracy. Liberal Democrats take this matter very seriously."