ARC Paper 3 Internal audit review-Complaints procedure Cover

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee Paper 3 19 June 2026 Page 1 of 3

For dis­cus­sion

Title: Intern­al audit review – Com­plaints pro­ced­ure Pre­pared by: Cov­er paper – Louise Allen, Head of Fin­ance and Cor­por­ate Oper­a­tions Paper: Andrew Thom­son, wbg-assign­ment leader

Pur­pose This paper presents the res­ults of the Intern­al Auditor’s review on the Park Authority’s com­plaints pro­ced­ure. The pur­pose of the review was to con­sider the com­plaints hand­ling arrange­ments with­in the Park Author­ity, to assess wheth­er these are suf­fi­cient, fol­low good prac­tice, and adhere to cur­rent legis­la­tion and guid­ance. This review formed part of the ²⁰²⁶⁄₂₇ Intern­al Audit Annu­al Plan.

Recom­mend­a­tions The Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee is asked to a) Con­sider the intern­al aud­it­ors report and find­ings. b) Endorse the man­age­ment responses to recom­mend­a­tions for future action and improvements.

Exec­ut­ive Summary

1. The aim of the assign­ment was to assess wheth­er: a) The Organ­isa­tion has adequate policies and pro­ced­ures in place in rela­tion to com­plaints hand­ling. b) There are strong con­trols in place for the hand­ling of com­plaints, ensur­ing pro­cesses are trans­par­ent and clear. c) The Organisation’s pro­cesses are adapt­able to accom­mod­ate unique issues of gov­ernance and trans­par­ency that can arise in hand­ling com­plaints. d) The Organisation’s com­plaint man­age­ment policies, pro­ced­ures and prac­tice are aligned to and com­ply with Nation­al Bod­ies expect­a­tions (Ombuds­man). e) There is an appro­pri­ate and con­sist­ent approach to the escal­a­tion of complaints.

Page 2 of 3

f) The Organisation uses past experiences to support organisational learning and improvements.
g) Complaint handling processes effectively manage cases that overlap with statutory or legally advised proceedings, balancing the need to respond with the protection of the organisation's legal and strategic interests.
h) Robust procedures are in place to identify and manage vexatious complaints, ensuring appropriate safeguards to protect the efficient use of public funds.
i) The processes for handling complaints submitted directly to the Board are managed consistently and in line with formal complaint procedures.

1. The Auditor’s over­all con­clu­sion is that there is a sub­stan­tial level of assur­ance that appro­pri­ate com­plaints hand­ling arrange­ments are in place.

2. Examples of good prac­tice iden­ti­fied are shown in the table below.

The fol­low­ing is a list of areas where the Organ­isa­tion is oper­at­ing effect­ively and fol­low­ing good practice.

1.	The Inform­a­tion Man­ager provides all staff with com­plaints hand­ling train­ing as part of their induc­tion. Fol­low­ing this, staff are made aware to con­tact the Inform­a­tion Man­ager on an ad hoc basis for any addi­tion­al sup­port needs spe­cif­ic to com­plaints hand­ling. Addi­tion­ally, the Organ­isa­tion has intern­al sup­port resources on their intranet that all staff can access as required.
2.	The Organ­isa­tion has a robust Com­plaints Hand­ling Policy in place, split into five parts, that out­line the arrange­ments in place for respond­ing to com­plaints. Our review of the key doc­u­ments found that these are aligned to SPSO guid­ance, out­line the roles and respons­ib­il­it­ies of staff, as well as oth­er key inform­a­tion we would expect to see in line with good prac­tice. Sup­port­ing guid­ance is avail­able to all staff via the Organisation’s intranet.
3.	The Organ­isa­tion con­siders les­sons learned and con­tinu­ous improve­ment for any com­plaints received, even if the out­come is that there is no grounds for the com­plaint to have been made. A recent example was the intro­duc­tion of a new Board com­plaints pro­ced­ure based on the res­ol­u­tion of a Stage One complaint.
4.	The Com­plaints Hand­ling Policy out­lines the roles and respons­ib­il­it­ies of staff for deal­ing with com­plaints with­in the Organ­isa­tion. This includes respond­ing to Stage One, Stage Two and SPSO related com­plaints for staff, Seni­or Man­age­ment and the Board.
5.	The Organisation’s pub­lic facing web­site con­tains the Com­plaints Hand­ling Policy as well as inform­a­tion on how to sub­mit a complaint.

1. The Aud­it­or made three recom­mend­a­tions – one graded as medi­um pri­or­ity and two at low pri­or­ity: a) Staff should ensure that Stage Two com­plaints are form­ally acknow­ledged with­in three work­ing days and that Stage Two com­plaints are mon­itored to ensure all dead­lines are met (Medi­um).

Page 3 of 3

b) Documented procedures should be enhanced to outline the definition and process to be followed for suspected vexatious complaints (Low).
c) Controls over the recording and maintenance of the Complaints Log should be strengthened to ensure accuracy and completeness and should be subject to periodic quality assurance checks. (Low).

Con­clu­sion

1. The recom­mend­a­tions made were accep­ted by management.

Louise Allen louiseallen@​cairngorms.​co.​uk 03 June 2026