Complaints - ACT government agencies
Complaints—ACT government agencies
Complaints overview
Each year, we receive complaints across a range of issues about many government agencies. Many complaints are resolved quickly, requiring only a phone call; others can require detailed examination of agency files and procedures and interviews with agency officers.
Complaints received
There was a small decrease in approaches and complaints received about ACT Government agencies (512, compared to the 526 approaches and complaints received in the previous year; Table 1). Figure 1 provides a comparison of approaches and complaints received about ACT Government agencies since 2001–02.
FIGURE 1 Approaches and complaints received about
ACT Government agencies, 2001–02 to 2005–06
*The numbers of approaches and complaints received about ACT Government agencies have been combined for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. For 2001–02 and 2002–03, the numbers relate only to complaints received.
Due to the transition within the office to a new complaints management system and changes to work practices, we have combined in Figure 1 the number of approaches and complaints received in 2003–04 and 2004–05 to provide a comparison with the way we have recorded approaches and complaints received in 2005–06.
Of the 512 approaches and complaints received, a large number were about two agencies: Housing ACT (105, compared to 94 in 2004–05—an increase of 12%); and ACT Corrective Services (97, compared to 107 in 2004–05). The bulk of complaints about Housing ACT related to maintenance, waiting lists and behaviour of other tenants. Issues about ACT Corrective Services related to property, maintenance of amenities and allegations of harassment. See further details on complaints about these agencies on pages 10 and 11.
There was an increase in approaches and complaints about ActewAGL (27, compared to 11 in 2004–05) and the Department of Urban Services (36, compared to 21 in 2004–05). The main complaint issues about ActewAGL related to electricity matters, which we referred to the Essential Service Consumer Council, as complaints were not within our jurisdiction. The main complaint issues about the Department of Urban Services (DUS) related to infrastructure and animal services. We decided not to investigate over half of the complaints we received about DUS, advising the complainants to first raise their concerns with the department.
There was a decrease in approaches and complaints about Roads ACT (42, compared to 57 in 2004–05); Office for Children, Youth and Family Support (37, compared to 53 in 2004–05); and ACT Planning and Land Authority (37, compared to 53 in 2004–05). These reductions in complaint numbers are at a time when there has been continuing work by those agencies to improve their complaints-handling policies and procedures.
Complaints finalised
During 2005–06, the Ombudsman's office finalised 522 approaches and complaints which contained 553 issues about ACT Government agencies, compared to 526 approaches and complaints and 596 issues in 2004–05. Complaints can contain a number of issues, each requiring separate investigation and possibly resulting in different outcomes.
Of the 553 complaint issues that were finalised during the year, 37% were investigated compared to 39% in 2004–05.
Most decisions not to investigate were because complainants had not first tried to resolve their problem with the relevant agency. The rationale for deciding not to investigate is that matters in dispute should first be raised and clarified at the source of the problem. This practice provides an agency with the opportunity to resolve any issues before an external body, such as the Ombudsman, becomes involved.
For those complaint issues we did investigate, remedies included agency explanation (explaining to the complainant why the agency acted the way it did); action to expedite the matter; an agency apology; agency reconsideration of an earlier decision; or changes in agency administrative policy and procedure.
Time taken to finalise complaints
During the year, of the 522 approaches and complaints about ACT Government agencies that were dealt with, 94% were finalised within three months of receipt (see Figure 2). This compares with 85% finalised within three months of receipt in 2004–05.
Of the remaining complaints, 3% were completed in three to six months and 3% took over six months to complete. Complaints taking more than six months to complete were more complex and usually required extensive involvement of senior staff.
FIGURE 2 Time taken to finalise approaches and
complaints about ACT Government agencies, 2005–06
Overview of complaints
In last year's annual report, we highlighted areas of concern relating to two agencies about which we receive a relatively high number of complaints each year.
Housing and Community Services
The main complaint issues related to maintenance, the behaviour of other tenants, and waiting lists for tenants needing to move to more suitable premises; it is not clear whether these issues are part of an emerging pattern. In 2004–05, we worked closely with Housing and Community Services (HCS) staff to develop proactive approaches to resolving complaints, and there was a marked decrease (12%) in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman in that year. We have continued the same collaboration with HCS this year, although there has been a 12% increase in complaints.
HCS has indicated that it is addressing the waiting list issue by reviewing the priority-housing list and the procedures for progressing matters. This should result in a reduction of complaints in this area in 2006–07. We will continue to work with the agency to assist with complaint handling and to monitor trends in complaints.
Belconnen Remand Centre
Of the 98 complaint issues finalised in 2005–06 about ACT Corrective Services, 81 issues were about the Belconnen Remand Centre (BRC). Some of the complaint issues related to:
- access by detainees to their property—in one case, a detainee complained that BRC staff had not allowed him access to his own clothes when he requested them; in this case, it was because the detainee had not made his request within the specified timeframe
- maintenance of amenities in the facility—an example is a series of complaints about cooling of the BRC during the summer months
- allegations of harassment by BRC staff—for example, one detainee complained that he was simultaneously approached by several custodial officers concerning the resolution of an issue he had with only one of them.
Very few of the complaints were substantiated upon investigation and ACT Corrective Services took appropriate action in relation to all matters investigated. The issues of overcrowding and lack of exercise facilities identified last year appear to have been successfully addressed, even though this has not resulted in an overall reduction in complaints. It is not clear why complaint numbers have remained steady despite the action taken by ACT Corrective Services to address the issues. We will continue to work with senior staff at the BRC to monitor and resolve issues arising in complaints, particularly as work proceeds on establishing the new ACT prison.
Complaint Themes
The main themes identified across agencies during 2005–06 were:
- confidentiality of communications
- clarity of procedures
- timely responses by agencies
- getting a remedy
- existing complaint procedures
- 'falling through the cracks'.
Confidentiality of communications
The Ombudsman conducts investigations in private and treats the confidentiality of complainants very seriously. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that people in custody can communicate confidentially with our office. The Telephone monitoring case study illustrates how we responded to an issue of confidentiality and how ACT Corrective Services cooperated in resolving the matter.
The ACT Ombudsman communicates with detainees in the BRC and in other ACT detention facilities via secure telephone lines. Installation of these lines was intended to prevent third parties from having access to Ombudsman conversations with detainees who complain to the office.
A detainee telephoned the Ombudsman's office from the BRC to discuss his complaint. At the end of his conversation with an Ombudsman staff member, the voice of a third party was heard to interject a comment. Both the detainee and the staff member heard this comment.
This possible compromise of the confidentiality of communication with a complainant was regarded as a grave matter. In this instance, ACT Corrective Services took prompt and thorough action to address our concern.
The third party's interjection was made possible by a technical fault in the BRC phone system which allowed the third party—also a detainee—to access the conversation on a crossed line. The technical fault was due to the age and poor condition of the relevant phone lines in the BRC.
These phone lines have been repaired, and there has been no recurrence of the problem. We suggested to ACT Corrective Services that, in future, immediate notice be given to our office, to other relevant agencies and to detainees of any similar technical fault in the phone system of a detention facility. ACT Corrective Services has accepted this suggestion.
Clarity of procedures
All agencies have policies and procedures for carrying out their responsibilities and responding to matters that arise from discharging those responsibilities. As in previous years, we received complaints where the relevant agency had followed its procedures but the procedures themselves were ambiguous. The Unclear procedures case study is one example of how this can cause difficulty to a complainant.
Mr A contacted the Ombudsman's office after the Department of Urban Services (DUS) refused to pay for damages of $2,500 to his nephew's vehicle. The vehicle was parked on Mr A's property when a limb from a tree on the adjoining nature strip fell onto the car.
The DUS employees who removed the tree after the damage occurred advised the owner of the vehicle to obtain three quotes for the repair of the vehicle. After submitting the quotes, the vehicle owner received a letter from DUS, some 14 months later, stating that no payment would be forthcoming as the limb falling was considered an 'Act of God' and there was no liability.
However, Mr A had contacted DUS four months before the incident because the tree was dropping branches and there was some concern that the tree was unstable.
After investigating the complaint, we found that the inspection carried out at the time the concern was initially reported had not been thorough. We also noted that the policy on 'Procedure for claiming for tree damaged property and applying for reimbursement' was unclear in a number of important respects. We recommended that reimbursement for the repairs would be an appropriate remedy.
DUS accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation and offered full reimbursement to the vehicle owner for repairs. DUS is also drafting clearer procedures for dealing with claims for damage from falling tree branches.
Timely responses by agencies
It is a continuing challenge for some agencies to respond to complaints from individuals and to our office about complaint investigations we are conducting. Many complaints arise or are exacerbated by agency delay in responding to the issues raised by a person.
Many complaints to our office took longer than necessary to finalise and required substantially more effort to resolve because agencies were not responsive to requests for information from the Ombudsman's staff. These delays can undermine the role of the Ombudsman, and ultimately do not benefit anybody as they only reflect poorly on the agency concerned. Fortunately, agencies have been open to developing procedures to better manage the complaint investigation process. We will continue to work with agencies to refine these procedures over the coming year.
Getting a remedy
While the overall aim of the Ombudsman is to improve public administration, the focus in investigating an individual complaint is on obtaining an effective remedy for the complainant. In some cases, a person has suffered detriment and seeks the Ombudsman's help to redress the situation. The Ombudsman has no power to change decisions but is often in a position to persuade an agency to make good whatever has gone wrong. The Loss reimbursed case study is one example of where intervention by the Ombudsman meant that the complainants were compensated for the loss they had incurred. The case study also illustrates that an apology can sometimes be an appropriate remedy for a problem.
Mr B and his daughter (who lived overseas) were the beneficiaries of a deceased estate administered by the Public Trustee of the ACT. A delay in payment of moneys meant that Mr B and his daughter received significantly reduced distributions from the estate, due to a shift in exchange rates.
After the Ombudsman drew attention to the matter, the Public Trustee examined it and determined that the problem arose with the bank delaying processing and obtained a refund of the loss from the bank. This refund was given to Mr B and his daughter.
Mr B also complained that his queries about some of the expenses for the deceased's funeral were initially met with claims that Mr B's brother had been consulted over the arrangements for the funeral. His brother denied this. Our investigation showed that Mr B's brother had not been consulted over the specific arrangements, although there had been contact with him about when the funeral would be held. The Public Trustee offered an apology for its inaccurate statements.
Top
Existing complaints procedures
Often when people approach the Ombudsman, they have not earlier raised the matter with the agency concerned. The Ombudsman generally will not investigate a matter unless the complainant has already given the agency an opportunity to deal with the complaint. During the year, many complainants were advised to take this course of action. A variation on this theme is where a complainant approaches the Ombudsman to investigate but has not yet allowed the agency's internal processes to be finalised and resolved. An example of this is the Objection process available case study.
Mr C complained about the mismanagement of a development application, which he believed would devalue and significantly change the aspect from his property.
Mr C had purchased a block of land in a new development based on the development plans he was shown of the block and surrounding area by the Land Development Agency. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman about a development application being lodged that proposed a significantly different development, removing trees he understood were to stay and installing floodlighting that would directly shine onto his property.
As Mr C had lodged an objection to the development application, we advised him that we would not investigate his complaint until that process was complete. We also advised Mr C that he could approach us again if he was concerned about the decision-making process. Mr C contacted us again following the decision on the development application, and we are considering his complaint on its merits.
'Falling through the cracks'
There continued to be complaints about which of two agencies was responsible for an issue. In last year's report, we drew attention to a lack of coordination between the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) and ActewAGL that led to a complainant incurring substantial costs. A delay in obtaining legal advice by one of the agencies means that issue is still not resolved. The Lack of interagency consultation case study is another example of a matter falling between the cracks.
Mr D complained that a development application was approved by ACTPLA without any public notification and without any objection rights for the people who could be affected by the development.
He also complained that the development application failed to consider the relocation of a bike path and the provision of adequate landscaping and screening along the boundary of his property. He believed that the development application was also inconsistent with representations made by the Land Development Agency (LDA).
It would appear that the problem occurred because the development approval was, according to Mr D, inconsistent with the Deed of Agreement entered into between the developer and the Territory concerning off-site works.
Mr D was able to obtain a remedy (related to the relocation of the bike path and provision of landscaping as agreed to by LDA and ACTPLA), partly due to the Ombudsman's intervention. While Mr D dropped through the cracks of the process for the sale of the land (carried out by LDA) and the grant of development approval (granted by ACTPLA), this happened because of the unusual circumstances of the case. The agencies actively participated in remedying concerns.