Feedback Procedure

1 INTRODUCTION

We consider feedback to be, a complaint, appeal, dispute or compliment.

Feedback is a valuable tool in our aim to maintain a high standard of service to the construction industry. We recognise the importance of handling feedback in a timely and professional manner and aim to do this by following this procedure.

We provide advice below explaining how to send feedback together with a feedback form. However, we will accept and deal with feedback as appropriate regardless of how we receive it.

2 PURPOSE OF PROCEDURE

This page explains how we deal with complaints, appeals, disputes and compliments.

3 RESPONSIBILITY

3.1 Chief Executive
Responsible for ensuring that a suitable and effective feedback procedure is established and maintained.

3.2 Operations Manager (Secretariat)

Responsible for ensuring that:

  • this procedure is administered effectively by the Secretariat and implemented as required by RDL.
  • complaints, appeals and disputes are periodically analysed and reported to the Chief Executive for review

and for

  • the management of the feedback database including its maintenance and configuration.

3.3 Feedback Administrator

A member of the certification staff is designated as the Feedback Administrator to be responsible for recording information onto the feedback database and prompting responses, as required, within service response targets.

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 Complaint

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction made to an organization, related to its products, or the complaints handling process itself, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected (BS ISO 10002-2004).

Complaints falling within the categories listed below must be logged onto the feedback database.

  1. Appeals against RDL's assessment or evaluation decisions and disputes about statements made by RDL.
  2. Cases about the provision of, or failure to provide, satisfactory service by RDL, involving financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience.
  3. Cases which are not directly related to RDL's service including complaints about suppliers of certified products or the products themselves (e.g. complaints made by home occupiers about sound transmission through built robust details).
  4. High profile cases (see 7.2) where, for example, legal action, politicians, Government departments, consumer groups and the media are involved, or where there is a risk that they may become involved.
  5. Cases which represent a risk to the loyalty of a major customer or RDL's relationship with them.
  6. Cases which do not fall within the above categories but which appear to be of equal significance to RDL and/or its stakeholders.

4.2 Complainant

The person or party submitting a complaint, appeal or dispute

4.3 Appeal

A formal request to reconsider a decision made.

4.4 Dispute

A disagreement of something stated, i.e. to question the truth or validity of a statement

4.5 Compliment

Any positive feedback related to RDL including its, scheme, personnel, products/services or quality of service.

5 HANDLING COMPLIMENTS

The details should be passed to the Feedback Administrator and entered onto the feedback database.  The Feedback Administrator notifies the Operations Manager who will decide on, and implement, any further action (e.g. thanking and giving recognition to a member of staff).

6 LEVELS FOR HANDLING COMPLAINTS, APPEALS AND DISPUTES

6.1 General

There are three escalating levels.  RDL aims to resolve all cases at level 1.  However, if a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome at this level, there is recourse to a second level and, in some cases, a third level.

6.2 Level 1 Investigation and response

An appropriate person must investigate the case and respond to the complainant in accordance with this procedure.

6.3 Level 2 Internal review

In the event that a complainant is not satisfied with RDL's response, the complainant may ask for it to be escalated to Level 2.  A senior person who was not involved in the original decision will then review the case.  This will normally be the Chief Executive, other director or member of the Standards Committee.

6.4 Level 3 panel review

In cases which could potentially affect the certification scheme's reputation or key stakeholders' satisfaction, the complainant is entitled to ask for a panel review if dissatisfied with the outcome of level 2.  In such cases, RDL will create an ad hoc panel consisting of at least 2 non-executive directors who have not been involved in level 1 or 2.  The panel must review the case and decide:

  • to uphold or overturn RDL's previous response
  • what, if any, action must be taken.

7 PROCESSING COMPLAINTS, APPEALS AND DISPUTES

7.1 Assigning cases

Complaints, appeals or disputes must not be assigned to anyone who has any relationships that could compromise the impartiality of an investigation.

Appeals must not be assigned to anyone who has been involved in the assessment, evaluation or decision which is the subject of the appeal.

Subject to the above, the person receiving a complaint, appeal or dispute may resolve it if he or she has the necessary competence (see Appendix A - Assignment of complaints).  Otherwise, it must be passed to a Technical Advisor who will resolve it (subject to Appendix A) or pass it onto someone else with the necessary competence.

In the unlikely event that a case does not fall within the scope of Appendix A, the Operations Manager or, if unavailable at the time, a Technical Advisor must decide on who will resolve the case.  In making this decision, the logic of Appendix A should be taken into account.

In the event of any doubt within the Secretariat about who is the most appropriate person to deal with a case, the Operations Manager should decide.  If the Operations Manager is in doubt, then the Chief Executive must decide.

The following types of feedback must be assigned to the Chief Executive immediately and copied to the Operations Manager.  The Chief Executive should inform and consult RDL's Chairman as and when appropriate.

Cases involving one or more of the following:

  • Politicians - MPs, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament), AMs (Members of the Welsh Assembly), MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) or Members of the Northern Ireland Executive
  • Government Departments, including Communities and Local Government (CLG), the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
  • Consumer groups or enforcement organisations, including the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), Trading Standards, the Consumers Association etc.
  • Broadcast, print and online media
  • Industry bodies such as Trade associations, HBF, the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group (BCPSAG), Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC) or the Construction Industry Council (CIC)
  • actual or threatened legal action against RDL, its directors or its employees
  • alleged negligence against RDL, its directors or its employees
  • potential or actual serious conflicts with a major customer (an example of major customer = large builder).

7.2 Investigations

The person handling the case must investigate it and determine whether it is valid.

Investigations should normally include reviewing the available information and, if necessary, seeking additional information from the complainant and/or any other relevant source.  This includes reviewing the details and outcome of any previous, similar cases.

In the event that the case involves more than one feedback issue (e.g. a complaint about fee levels and quality of service), the person handling the case must ensure that the relevant person for each issue is consulted before a response is completed.

7.3 Decisions

7.3.1 Valid complaints, appeals and disputes related to the provision of the certification scheme

In the event that RDL was at fault, rectification and/or corrective action must be taken, if appropriate, in accordance with RDL's Nonconformities procedure (RD006).  The results of any previous, similar cases must be taken into account.

Where a case is found to be valid (against RDL), the person handling the case should consider what, if any, goodwill gesture should be offered to the complainant.  Approval by the Chief Executive for any expenditure is required before any such offer is made.

7.3.2 Valid complaints relating to certified products or their suppliers

This section of the procedure is based upon the proposals set out in the public consultation document for the then proposed Robust Details scheme (The Building Act 1984 - The Building Regulations 2000 - Amendment of the Building Regulations to allow Robust Standard Details to be used as an alternative to pre-completion testing, August 2003, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

This indicated that, because all Robust Details would be built to standard patterns, it could be said that there would be at least as good a chance of the Robust Details meeting the requirements as with PCT (where around only one pair in ten dwellings was tested).  It also said that, if the householder felt that the standards for sound insulation were not being met when Robust Details had been used, they would have exactly the same route for redress as with PCT after occupation.

In view of this, the document proposed that there should be no complaints procedure for RSDs over and above that which already existed for other parts of the regulations.  However, it stated that the existing procedure should be made clear to dissatisfied purchasers.

When responding to complaints from homeowner/occupiers about sound transmission through Robust Details structures, the response should provide advice on the existing procedure for complaints relating to Building Regulation compliance.  The advice contained in the full response should be based upon RD233 "guide response to consumer complaints”.

8 RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS, APPEALS AND DISPUTES

Complaints, appeals and disputes should be acknowledged promptly within the target timescale specified (Appendix C - target response times) unless a full response is given within the same timescale.

Cases must be investigated promptly and a full response should be given within the target timescale specified (Appendix C - target response times).

9 CLOSING COMPLAINTS, APPEALS AND DISPUTES

Cases may be closed by the Feedback Administrator when:

  • RDL's full response at level 1 has been sent; or
  • the complainant has indicated they no longer wish to pursue the case.

Any case may be reopened at any time if the complainant is not satisfied with the full response at level1.  Similarly, cases may be closed after any level 2 response has been given but may be reopened if eligible for a level 3 panel review.

10 RECORDS

The minimum details to be recorded are listed in Appendix B - Details to be recorded.

All correspondence, including the completed response, must be made available to the Feedback Administrator promptly throughout.

The Feedback Administrator must record these details onto the feedback database promptly in order to maintain an up to date record of the case at all times.

11 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS PROCEDURE

  • Feedback database
  • RD006 Nonconformities
  • RD233 Guide response to consumer complaints.

12 Appendix A - Assignment of complaints, appeals and dispute

 

Category Assign to (subject to restrictions in 7.1) Response Approval
1 Appeals against RDL's assessment or evaluation decisions and disputes about statements made by RDL. Chief Executive Chief Executive
2 Cases about the provision of, or failure to provide, satisfactory service by Robust Details, involving financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience [unless also category 2, 3 or 4 which take priority
Technical service Technical Advisor Operations Manager
Senior Administrator or Administrator or Technical Advisor Operations Manager
Other operational services Operations Manager or Technical Advisor

Chief Executive

3 Cases which are not directly related to RDL's service, which would include cases about robust detail constructions received from home occupiers Operations Manager or Technical Advisor Chief Executive
4 High profile cases where, for example, legal action, politicians, Government departments, consumer groups and the media are involved, or where there is a risk that they may become involved Chief Executive Chief Executive
5 Cases which represent a risk to the loyalty of a major customer or RDL's relationship with it Chief Executive Chief Executive
6 Cases which do not fall within the above categories but which appear to be of equal significance to RDL and/or its stakeholders Operations Manager or Technical Advisor Chief Executive

13 Appendix B - Details to be recorded

The minimum information required for a formal complaint, appeal or dispute is:

  • customer's name and title
  • customer's contact details, including telephone number
  • date received by RDL
  • description of complaint, appeal or dispute
  • any useful reference numbers, if known, e.g. unique dwelling reference number, builder or developer name, address, etc.
  • the outcome
  • all details necessary to monitor and report on the required response times.

14 Appendix C - target response times

The target deadlines for responding to complaints, appeals and disputes at level 1 are:

  • written acknowledgement within 3 working days of receipt
  • full written response (or, if this is genuinely not possible, a written holding response explaining what is happening/what we are doing) within 10 working days of receipt.
    The target deadlines for responding to cases at level 2 (internal review) are:
  • full response within 4 weeks of receiving request for an internal review
    The target deadlines for responding to cases at level 3 (panel review) are:
  • full response within 12 weeks of receiving request for a panel review

Click here to download a PDF version of the Feedback Procedure

How to give feedback

There are several ways in which you can complain:

Robust Details Ltd
Davy Avenue
Knowlhill
Milton Keynes
MK5 8NB

It would be helpful if you could address your feedback FAO the Operations Manager please.