Ofcom respond to General Procedures for Investigating Breaches Consultation

Having read Ofcom's response to their "general procedures for investigating breaches of broadcast licences" consultation, I'm reminded that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"!

Regular readers will remember my response to Ofcom's Annual Plan for 2014/15, where I set out my concerns that the bureaucratic processes of the regulator are currently being abused by vexatious complainants. I'm pleased to report that after its original submission, Ofcom suggested my comments also be submitted to their consultation into the General Procedures for investigating breaches of broadcast licences.

On the positive side, I am pleased to see that Ofcom recognise that "the community radio sector ...are likely to have fewer resources for compliance purposes than larger stations". However, it should be noted that this specific comment is made in reference to the length of time Ofcom require Stations to produce recordings for investigation.

Also, I believe that the proposal to introduce a "new initial assessment stage" into the complaints process is a positive development, as it brings about the informal resolution process I suggested in my submission, but by another name. However, Ofcom explicitly disagree with this interpretation!

My point about informal resolution was simply to streamline the complaints process. If a show receives multiple complaints (such as the 5 received about Somer Valley FM's Basement Jerxx programme), a quick phone call is a better way of dealing with this, rather than opening a formal procedure every time.

Having reflected upon what Ofcom have to say, I understand that the whole point of being licensed is to ensure the licence holder delivers upon their "obligations". It's these very obligations, or responsibilities, that separate the licensed broadcaster from the unlicensed broadcaster, or bedroom bandit! 

Indeed, the premise that Ofcom "consider each and every complaint (they) receive to assess whether a complaint, on its face, raises potentially substantive issues in relation to a relevant requirement which warrants investigation", is clearly part of this licensing process, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." It may not feel fair that community broadcasters are expected to feel the same heat in the same kitchen as their commercial counterparts, but there is equally something quite flattering about the expectation that amateur and professional alike are expected to strut their stuff on the same playing field, the essence of what football fans refer to as the "magic" of the FA Cup!

However, its worth reflecting that these "obligations" cut both ways. Ofcom's own published procedures for the assessment and investigation of compliance, specifically their Procedures for investigating breaches of content standards for television and radio, state the following:

1.9 In the interests of timely resolution, Ofcom considers that complainants should follow the broadcaster’s own complaints procedure before making a complaint to Ofcom.

1.11 All complaints should include sufficient detail about the matter complained of. Specifically, complaints should include:

• the name / title of the programme complained about;
• the date and time of the programme;
• the channel on which it was broadcast;
• the nature of the complaint and (where possible) the particular parts of the programme complained about;
• the complainant’s full contact details (including e-mail address where appropriate); and
• whether (and, if so, when) the complainant has submitted a complaint to the relevant broadcaster.

The inclusion of these details (or as many of them as possible) is very important. A failure to provide them may mean that Ofcom is not able to investigate the complaint.

Ofcom make it perfectly clear in their response to my submission, that they "do not consider that there should be a requirement for viewers and listeners to contact the broadcaster before submitting a complaint". However, I can't help but feel that knowing whether a complainant has contacted the relevant broadcaster has some bearing on the validity of the complaint. There may come a day when Ofcom choose to take more of an interest in this fact. Indeed, given that complainants are required to provide full contact details, it would be interesting to cross reference this information with those "Not Investigated" complaints to see whether any commonalities do exist. Ofcom appear to have it in their gift to name and shame the "usual suspects"!

At the moment, Ofcom's stance on “vexatious complainants” is that it is already the case under their "existing
Standards Procedures, (they) consider each and every complaint (they) receive to determine whether it raises an issue(s) warranting further assessment and/or investigation ". However, when we consider the fact that their existing Standards Procedures give them the potential not to investigate a complaint, dependent upon the information the complainant provides,  its clear that they also have the power to be so much more proactive in this regard.