CWGC Complaints update

[Simon Birch]

In November of last year some of you will know that a formal letter of complaint was sent to the CWGC. This letter was each signed by a small group of this forum’s members. While we cannot yet provide concrete details, as a group, we thought it time to update this forum on the current state of play.

In short, the detailed complaint broke down into three broad categories:

1.     Failure to communicate properly.

2.     Access to archival material.

3.     Administration of cases and rededication services – in short, the length of time to review a case and reach a conclusion with a rededication service.

Our letter of complaint ended up on the desk of CWGC Chief Executive, Claire Horton. The next day she wrote directly back to our group, with what we thought was an honest appraisal from the CWGC side, understanding that there were significant problems. She instructed her deputy, Chief Operating Officer Barry Murphy ‘to provide a full and comprehensive response,’ and asked us, as a group, to act as the commissions ‘critical friend.’

From that, a full day meeting was set up in January at the CWGC HQ in Maidenhead, with three members of our group, Barry Murphy, Rich Hills (Director of Commemorations), Mel Donnelly and Catherine Nell, who both work in the Commemorations Team.

We presented our side of things, and they theirs. At the end of that day I believe that both sides had a clearer understanding of the other sides problems. At that point the CWGC wanted to go away and have a think about possible solutions.

Last week a further meeting was held. One of the things that came out of that was that the CWGC had (or were in the process of now so doing) – taken on another three people to add to the existing eleven, which can only speed up the resolution of cases etc.

As regards the communication issues they gave us a very rough idea of how they propose to improve things – but until they decide exactly how they want to proceed, (and the devil is often in the detail with these things), we think it unfair to reveal more at this stage.

We anticipate they will have more details by June – how many more details though is anyone’s guess. I will say that from the very limited knowledge we have so far, if taken to fruition, it should be possible to quickly identify where your case currently sits within their system and improve communication. We believe we know a little more of the detail – but again think it only fair to the CWGC to decide exactly what their ‘cunning plan’ is. The only other thing I can add though is that, again if proceeded with, it will not be a cheap or quick fix.

While we suspect that there will be questions that other researchers want answered quickly, at this stage we are unable to give those answers - mostly because we, as a group, simply do not know any details. The sole purpose of this post is to let this forum know that, although we cannot yet provide concrete solutions to the problems that the CWGC, and by extension other private researchers have, there is work being carried on behind the scenes. Will that work provide a complete and favourable resolution to our complaints? – in my view that is unlikely. But it may provide some relief to the frustrations that, as private researchers, we have all felt.

In summary, the CWGC know they have a problem and are doing some work to help resolve some of the problems we researchers currently face. Only time will tell more.

Simon

[MelPack]

Simon

That sounds like a very positive outcome and far better that wailing in the wilderness.

It is great that that level of engagement has been achieved.

Well done to all concerned.

[Matlock1418]

Very well done for getting this far ...

In hope ...

M