23 Queen Square,
G41 2BG
Andrew Shaw
Director KPMG
andrew.shaw@kpmg.co.uk

14/12/15

Dear Mr Shaw,
Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Complaints Audit
I was very interested to see the KPMG Audit report on complaints handling which was considered by the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Audit Committee on 8th December.  I appreciate that the introduction to your report makes it clear that this was for the National Park Authorities only, but having submitted four complaints to the LLTNP this year – which appears to be the period audited - I have information that conflicts with your audit findings which I wish to bring to your attention.    
The Audit states one of its objectives was to mitigate non-compliance with the “SPSO’s model code of conduct” – I assume this means SPSO’s model complaints handling process or was it referring to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life Model Code of Conduct?  Your audit found the LLTNP had 100% compliance with the model SPSO complaint handling process based on a sample of 25 out of what appear to be a total of 78 complaints. 
My first two complaints, which were numbered COMP 2015/001 and COMP 2015/009 involved complaints against the former and current Chief Executive.  According to LLTNP’s procedure complaints against senior staff should be held by a Director.  Neither was and both were delegated initially to the Legal and Governance Manager to investigate.   So, I know of two cases where the LLTNP breached their own procedure and which are not reflected in your report.
The Park’s explanation for this breach was that sufficient Directors were not in place at the time and therefore they decided to delegate the investigation downwards.  However, I made both these complaints to the Convenor precisely because they were about the Chief Executive and also explicitly raised questions during the process of how the Board could expect any member of staff managed by the Chief Executive to undertake a proper investigation of that Chief Executive.  I also raised questions of the duty of the Board – its in their remit - to hold their Chief Executive to account.  These raise important procedural questions including whether the current procedure is adequate.  However, going by the existing procedure, since the Park had only one Director and were likely to breach that procedure should the case go to review, they should have asked that Director to conduct the initial investigation and then could have asked a Board Member to conduct any subsequent review which would have removed some of the difficulties facing people asked to investigate their own boss.   The statement therefore in your audit report that complaints were escalated through to the relevant person is only half the story, suggesting complaints about front line were escalated up appropriately.   Your report contains no comments about whether complaints to the Board were delegated down appropriately.
I assume from this that neither of these complaint was included your sample but would be grateful if you could confirm this and also the basis of the sample, ie was it random, chosen by yourself on the basis of information in the log or provided by the National Park?   I would also be grateful if you could clarify, as auditors, whether you would expect the LLTNP to raise issues such this proactively in the course of the audit?   
I also note that the scope of your Audit included comparisons on good practice in other organisations of similar size and would have thought that this might have been an opportunity, had you known about it,  to compare how other organisations went about investigations complaints against their Chief Executive with a view to improving processes – and not just make a comparison with SPSO and the Cairngorms National Park Authority.
A feature of all my complaints is they concern issues of governance.   As a consequence, although the LLTNP advised me I had a right of complaint to the SPSO, as per their procedure, the SPSO then advised me in respect of complaints 001 and 009 that I had no right to complain because they only consider complaints involving injustice or hardship and I had suffered neither personally.   As a consequence there is nowhere else for the public to go when a body like the Park breaches its own procedures.   I have raised this with Ministers but in my view makes it even more important that internal audit take a wide look at processes.
I hope I have given you sufficient information so that you can appreciate why the answers to my questions highlighted in bold are in the public interest.   
Yours Sincerely,

Nick Kempe

Cc Dr Aileen McLeod, Minister for the Environment
  Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs
  Kevin Boyle, Audit Scotland