Introduction

As the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, I provide a service to the public by undertaking independent investigations into complaints that government departments, a range of other public bodies in the UK, and the NHS in England have not acted properly or fairly or have provided a poor service.

The Ombudsman is responsible for deciding whether maladministration, service failure or both have occurred. The Ombudsman’s view is final, subject only to judicial review by the courts. We apply a test of fairness and reasonableness, taking into account the circumstances of each particular case; not a test of perfection. We draw attention to any failures and suggest how things may be put right. We also aim to share the lessons learned from complaints to help improve the way public services are provided.

This document gives our views on the key Principles of Good Administration. We want to be open and clear with both complainants and public bodies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction about the sorts of behavior we expect when public bodies deliver public service, and the tests we apply in deciding whether maladministration and service failure have occurred. In particular, we want public bodies to understand how we will approach complaints, and complainants to understand how we will consider their cases. In common with similar bodies in the European Union and other countries, we have approached this positively by looking at what constitutes good public administration.

Central to our assessment of the seriousness of any complaint is the impact of a public body’s actions on the individuals or organizations concerned. The Principles of Good Administration are based on this, and on our 40 years’ experience of handling large numbers of complaints.

We appreciate that the public bodies within jurisdiction are many and varied, have a wide range of remits and statutory duties, and often have their own demanding standards. Public bodies have to take reasonable decisions bearing in mind all the circumstances; delivering good service often means taking a broad and balanced view of all of the individuals or organizations that may be affected by decisions. We hope the Principles will provide a framework for all public bodies within jurisdiction – despite their differences – to follow in fulfilling their duties.

The Principles are not a checklist, nor are they the final or only means by which we will assess and decide individual cases. They are broad statements of what we believe public bodies within jurisdiction should be doing to deliver good administration and customer service. If we conclude that a public body has not followed the Principles, we will not automatically find maladministration or service failure. We will apply the Principles fairly and sensitively to individual complaints, which we will, as ever, decide on their merits and in all the circumstances of the case.

We understand there is often a balance between being sensitive to the needs of a customer and yet acting proportionately to maximise the effective use of public resources. The actions of public bodies are of course limited by their resources, and they have to weigh the highest standards of customer service against what Government, Parliament or both have decided is affordable. All public bodies must, and should, spend public money with care. However, finite resources should not be used as an excuse for poor service or administration.

We believe that the Principles are compatible with the Seven Principles of Public Life as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life1, the British and Irish Ombudsman Association’s Guide to principles of good complaint handling 2 and the values and behaviours in the Civil Service Code3. They will help us to do our core work – to investigate and resolve complaints as effectively and efficiently as possible and to provide a first-class public service to complainants and public bodies within jurisdiction.