Appendix 4 | Additional reporting on Postal Industry Ombudsman

This appendix provides additional reporting on the Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO) function as required under s 19X of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (the Act).

Details of the circumstances and number of occasions where the Postal Industry Ombudsman has made a requirement of a person under section 9 (as that section applies because of sections 19R and 19S).

The PIO made a requirement under s 9 of the Act on one occasion during 2008–09, in connection with an investigation into a complaint about service delivery and complaint handling regarding a registered post article. Ombudsman staff wished to interview a delivery centre manager who, having consulted with his managers, declined to attend a voluntary interview. As the Ombudsman was of the view that the delivery centre manager might be able to provide information relevant to the investigation, a notice was issued requiring him to attend an interview. This investigation was published as abridged Report No. 5/2009.

Details of the circumstances and number of occasions where the holder of the office of Postal Industry Ombudsman has decided under subsection 19N(3) to deal with, or to continue to deal with, a complaint or part of a complaint in his or her capacity as the holder of the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The PIO transferred one complaint about Australia Post to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for investigation. In this case Australia Post advised the PIO that its role in the delivery of an item had been as a contractor for a registered private postal operator, not as the initial service provider. Accordingly Australia Post was of the view that the Ombudsman's investigation should be directed to the private postal operator.

Because the complaint was that the item had been lost while in Australia Post's possession and the complainant claimed that Australia Post was not acknowledging this to the initial service provider, the complaint was pursued by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as an investigation into Australia Post's administrative processes.

Details of recommendations made in reports during the year under section 19V; and statistical information about actions taken during that year as a result of such recommendations.

Australia Post: Use of notification cards (Report No. 14/2008)

The Ombudsman recommended that Australia Post review its policies and procedures in relation to the use of notification cards, and prepare a report that addresses the issues set out below.

• Measures to reduce the incidence of failure to follow carding procedures by Australia Post's delivery people.
• Guidance to delivery people about the circumstances in which they should go to the door of premises, or use any available intercom system, to attempt delivery, including:
• whether the guidance should differ for [Postal Delivery Officers] and mail contractors, and between urban and rural and regional areas
• mail delivery areas in which no attempt will be made to deliver to the door, and how customers in any such area will be notified there is no parcel delivery to the door
• whether the decision to deliver an item to the door will be affected by factors such as the length of a driveway.
• Steps that can or should be taken to redeliver to the door, when requested by a customer.
• Whether the practice adopted by some post offices of recording all items held for collection should be made a universal requirement, and if not, the minimum practice that should be followed by post offices.
• Whether the identity of the sender should be recorded in some fashion on the notification card, and the best way of doing this.
• Whether Australia Post should introduce notification cards with peel–off bar codes for affixing to undeliverable items, and if not, other steps that can be taken to establish a link between a notification card and the item to which it relates.
• The form of identification to be produced by a person picking up a carded mail item, including:
• whether identification should be required in all cases, and if so, how that identification should be recorded
• if restrictions are imposed on the form of identification that will be accepted, how those restrictions should be advised on the notification card
• whether all items must be signed for on collection
• whether 'known to staff' will be accepted as a means of identification, and if so how the risk associated with that practice can best be managed.

Australia Post: Community polling practices: gauging community support for changes to postal delivery services (Report No. 1/2009)

The Ombudsman made the following recommendations.

Recommendation 1—Australia Post should review the way in which it carries out polls of communities to gauge their support for changes to mail delivery services. In particular, the review should address the feasibility of alternatives to the present system, such as asking residents whether they support (or strongly support) change, and taking steps such as face–to–face interviews, follow–up visits, and reminder letters, to ensure maximum community participation in the poll. Expert advice should be obtained as part of the review process.

Recommendation 2—If the review concludes that change to the present polling methodology is not practicable, Australia Post should conduct a program of follow–up surveys in areas that it has recently polled. These surveys should aim to establish whether all households received the polling form, and whether they were aware that by not responding to the survey their vote was being counted as a 'no' vote.

Recommendation 3—Australia Post should identify a method for taking account of the results of those surveys in future polls, to eliminate from the denominator used to calculate the poll result those households that did not receive polling papers.

Alternatively, Australia Post should conduct a follow–up survey in all polls before the result is calculated, to allow those households that did not receive polling papers to be discounted.

Recommendation 4—Australia Post should give consideration to retaining independent companies to carry out polls, at least in cases where larger numbers of households are involved.

Australia Post: Complaint about service delivery and complaint handling regarding a registered post article (Report No. 5/2009)

The Ombudsman's report recommended that Australia Post should:

• Implement a policy and procedure which includes timeliness standards for the escalation of complaints, including to the Corporate Security Group, and ensure that all staff are aware of the policy and procedure.
• Clarify the criteria used by State Offices to determine when to involve the Corporate Security Group in the investigation of lost or missing postal items.
• Modify the Australia Post Complaints Management System to allow for prolonged or complex investigations—such as by use of a 'pending' function.
• Examine whether there is a need to revise its procedures so as to ensure that all Customer Relations Centre officers (particularly new or inexperienced staff) are made aware of the need to:
• meet the obligations outlined in the Australia Post Customer Service Charter of resolving most complaints about domestic products and services in no more than ten working days
• ensure personal information about a complainant is not released to unauthorised third parties.
• Reinforce to staff the importance of keeping and maintaining records of its actions and activities. This is particularly the case where those records are a part of the delivery requirements of a postal service, such as registered post.

Australia Post: Administration of the mail redirection service (Report No. 7/2009)

This report was released at the end of 2008–09. The Ombudsman made the following recommendations.

Recommendation 1—Australia Post should consider ways in which it could transfer the data input function for mail redirections to the point of sale. This should include the customer being able to verify the data being input before it is saved into the system.

Recommendation 2—Australia Post should review whether to allow redirections to continue indefinitely without good reason, for example, by setting a maximum term for redirections where the applicant no longer lives at or has any ownership interest in the address the redirection is from.

Recommendation 3—Australia Post should review the way in which redirection stickers are fixed to mail items that are to be redirected. In particular Australia Post should consider:

• physically marking mail slots that correspond to addresses from which mail is being redirected, by way of a card or other marker
• having staff members in delivery facilities whose job it is to process and apply stickers to redirected mail once it has been sorted, so that this responsibility no longer falls on delivery staff.

Recommendation 4—Australia Post should make facilities available wherever redirection stickers are in use for those stickers to be reprinted on site.

Recommendation 5—Australia Post should permit the renewal of a redirection for a reasonable period after it has ended without requiring a new application to be lodged. The 'reasonable period' should be long enough to catch cases where the customer did not renew because they did not receive a renewal notice, and should be longer for overseas than for domestic customers.

Recommendation 6—Australia Post [Customer Relations Centre] staff should be reminded that international customers can appoint an agent to apply for redirection services on their behalf. Where the agent needs to have a particular document, such as an original receipt, CRC staff should specifically advise the customer of this.

Recommendation 7—Australia Post should review the written instructions it provides to staff about parcel redirections with a view to ensuring that those instructions are practicable and are in accord with what happens in practice. Steps should then be taken to assess compliance by staff with the instructions they have been given.

Recommendation 8—Australia Post should provide specific training to staff to ensure that complaints about redirection failure receive a high priority. Complaint handling processes should be structured in the manner outlined in Part 4 of [the] report.

TABLE A2Statistical information on implementation of PIO recommendations, 2008–09

Report	Recommendations				Total
	Fully implemented	In progress	Yet to begin	Not agreed
Australia Post: Use of notification cards1		4	1	2	7
Australia Post: Community polling practices		1 2	3		4
Australia Post: Complaint about service delivery and complaint handling regarding a registered post article	3	1	1		5
Australia Post: Administration of mail redirection service		3	1	4	8

1 The report made one recommendation that Australia Post review and report on seven aspects of its carding service, with suggestions being made as to how each of those seven aspects might be addressed.

2 Australia Post agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation of a full review of its polling practices. The Ombudsman's report made four recommendations, all of which are being considered as part of the review.