Chapter 5

Case Studies

Remedies to a complaint can vary significantly depending on the issue complained about, the expectations of the complainant and the rules or framework that govern the decision or action that is the subject of a complaint.

On an individual level, a range of remedies is available, such as a better explanation of the reasons for a decision, an apology, getting a decision changed or the award of compensation.

More broadly, one complaint from an individual can lead to administrative reform that improves administration and service delivery to other members of the public. While many complainants approach the Ombudsman’s office seeking redress in an individual case, many do so in the hope that other people will not have the same difficulties or experiences they have had.

The case studies in this chapter highlight some of the outcomes achieved for individuals and in improving agency administration as a result of Ombudsman investigations conducted during the reporting period.

Remedies for the Individual

One of the office’s primary functions is to consider and investigate complaints from members of the public. At the end of an investigation, where it appears there has been an error or some other failing, the Ombudsman will often recommend that an agency provide a particular remedy to an individual. These recommendations are usually well received by agencies and are acted upon.

On occasion, agencies use Ombudsman investigations and recommendations to proactively examine and fix identified problems.

Australia Post

Compensation paid after post office erred

Following an Ombudsman investigation, Australia Post agreed to pay discretionary compensation to Mr A for a lost parcel.

Mr A was interstate when Australia Post delivered a notification card to his home advising him that his personal signature was required to collect an item from the local post office. Upon returning home, Mr A signed an authorisation allowing his wife to collect the parcel. When Mr A’s wife went to collect the parcel, post office staff told her that Mr A had already done so. Australia Post declined to investigate the matter because, it said, post office staff had checked the identification of the person who had signed for, and collected, the parcel.

When the Ombudsman’s office became involved, Australia Post agreed to consider evidence from Mr A that he could not have signed for the parcel. Mr A produced travel documentation that showed he was interstate at the time the parcel was collected. As a result, Australia Post accepted that post office staff had erred when they gave out the parcel.

Value of lost ring reimbursed

An Ombudsman investigation led Australia Post to pay a customer discretionary compensation for jewellery lost in the mail.

Mr B complained to the Ombudsman’s office that Australia Post had declined his insurance claim for a diamond ring lost in transit to the United Kingdom. Australia Post refused to reimburse him for the insured value because he had sent it using an inappropriate service. Australian Post also claimed that he had not lodged an enquiry within the 30-day time limit.

The Ombudsman’s investigation led Australia Post to accept that it may have given Mr B incorrect advice about the best mail service to use to send valuable jewellery overseas. It also conceded that when Mr B contacted it within the 30‑day time limit, he had been incorrectly referred to Customs, which delayed his claim. Australia Post decided to offer him compensation of $5000 as a goodwill gesture.

Department of Defence

Improved access to medication

As a result of arrangements made by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, following an Ombudsman investigation, Mr C now receives through the mail the medication to which he is entitled for the treatment of a condition accepted as service-related.

Mr C complained to the Ombudsman’s office that he had difficulty obtaining the medication from his pharmacy. He believed the problem was caused by the Air Force’s assessment of his condition. The Ombudsman investigation established that the problem actually related to the dispensing pharmacy’s practice of charging above the recommended price for the medication. Arrangements were then made for the medication to be sent to Mr C from another pharmacy, at no extra cost to him.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Compensation agreement honoured

An Ombudsman investigation led to FaHCSIA meeting with traditional owners in a remote Indigenous community and documenting a compensation agreement, including a complaints resolution mechanism, which has since been implemented.

Mr D complained that the Australian Government had not honoured a compensation agreement relating to accidental damage of a sacred site. Community compensation had been agreed in the form of a tractor and a truck, and a storage compound to house the vehicles. The shire purchased the vehicles with money from FaHCSIA, but then used them in other communities until the truck broke down. The compound was not built.

Since the Ombudsman investigation, the shire has repaired the truck and built the storage compound.

House modified to meet specific needs

An Ombudsman investigation identified significant delays in modifications being made to Mr E’s house in order to make it a safer place to live.

A Northern Territory (NT) government agency recommended the modifications after it determined that Mr E’s house required ramps for motorised scooter access, a threshold ramp into the bathroom, toilet rail, hand-held shower and removal of the shower hob wall. Mr E had fallen three times trying to get in and out of his house and without the modifications he was at risk of further accidents.

Once this office alerted FaHCSIA to the complaint, it followed up the matter and advised that a work order had already been issued on 20 February 2012. The majority of the work was completed in March 2012.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink

Agency error uncovered via explanation of debts

An Ombudsman recommendation resulted in Centrelink officials meeting with Ms F, a resident of a remote Indigenous community, to explain the three debts she was repaying to the agency. When Ms F queried one of the debts, Centrelink re-examined its records and discovered that the debt had been raised in error. Centrelink erased the debt and explained the error to Ms F.

Unreasonable barriers removed in the face of financial hardship

An Ombudsman request to Centrelink that it liaise direct with the ATO regarding Ms G’s social security and family assistance claims meant that they were processed without her needing to engage with her former partner.

Ms G was experiencing financial hardship and living in a women’s refuge with her four children. She had an apprehended violence order against her former partner and was exempted from the requirement to obtain child support from him to claim the family tax benefit (FTB). However, when Ms G applied for FTB, she was told that her former partner needed to lodge his tax returns before the claim could be processed.

Ms G could not safely approach her former partner, so the Ombudsman’s office asked Centrelink—and it agreed—to liaise with the ATO to obtain the necessary information. Ms G was provided a crisis payment and subsequently received $4,870.89 in arrears and entitlements.

A tailored solution for a disability support pension recipient

Ms H was able to continue working, rather than giving up work and returning to a full disability support pension (DSP), after the Ombudsman’s office requested that Centrelink reconsider her case.

Centrelink had suspended Ms H’s DSP because she was working 15 hours a week. DSP recipients had their payments suspended or cancelled if they were working 15 hours a week or more under the 15-hour rule policy guidelines in place at the time Ms H lodged her complaint. Ms H explained to Centrelink that she could not exist on her employment income alone but, owing to her mental health condition, was not able to take on more work.

The Centrelink Authorised Review Officer (ARO) observed that although Ms H participated in employment, to do so she required high levels of ongoing support from her employment support services provider. The ARO took into consideration Ms H’s situation and the intention of the relevant policy and changed the original Centrelink decision.

Years of underpayments acknowledged and recompensed

A couple received in the order of $13,000 in underpaid social security payments after the Ombudsman drew to Centrelink’s attention its failure to action multiple requests for review.

Mr and Mrs J complained that while their appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) about the way Centrelink had assessed the assets of their family trust had been successful, the AAT had decided it could only backdate its decision to reduce those assets back to 2009. Mr and Mrs J had sought repayment back to 2005.

Upon reviewing the records, the Ombudsman discovered that since 2005 Mr and Mrs J had consistently protested to Centrelink about the way it had assessed the family trust’s assets as that assessment reduced the rate of benefit paid to Mr J. The Ombudsman pointed out that these contacts were really requests for review, yet Centrelink had treated them as opportunities to re-explain its decisions. Centrelink acknowledged this view and backdated the effect of the AAT decision to 2005. The outstanding review requests were finally actioned and Mr J was entitled to the money he had missed out on between 2005 and 2009.

Harsh, unnecessary red tape avoided

In response to an Ombudsman investigation, Centrelink restored Ms K’s carer payment (CP) for the care she provided to her severely disabled daughter without unnecessary red tape and delay.

Initially, Ms K was paid CP in respect of her daughter only, but later she was paid CP for the care she provided to her father-in-law as well. When Ms K’s father-in-law died, she contacted Centrelink to re-establish her CP on the basis of her care for her daughter only once more. Centrelink informed Ms K that to change the payments she would need to lodge a new claim, along with supporting medical documentation, and that it would take 49 days for the new claim to be processed.

Ms K contacted the Ombudsman’s office because she was in severe financial hardship. She had two children to care for and could not understand why Centrelink required her to resubmit the relevant documentation given the severity and unchanging nature of her daughter’s condition.

The Ombudsman’s office pointed out to Centrelink that the severity of Ms K’s daughter’s condition meant her care requirements were the same as they had been previously. Centrelink responded by arranging for Ms K to attend an office where she was granted CP immediately.

Integrity of a tribunal decision maintained

Centrelink erased a debt and apologised to Mr L following Ombudsman advice that a Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) decision that the debt should not have been raised was not an invitation for Centrelink to raise a recalculated debt.

Centrelink had raised a debt of around $7900 against Mr L. The SSAT decided that Mr L had not incurred a debt of $7900. Centrelink did not appeal the SSAT decision. Instead it made a new calculation on the basis of substantially the same evidence and raised a new debt against Mr L.

Centrelink had formed the view that the SSAT decision did not mean that there was no debt, rather there was not a debt of $7900. The Ombudsman pointed out to Centrelink that had the SSAT meant for the debt to be recalculated, it would have remitted the matter to Centrelink for that purpose. Centrelink agreed it could not raise a new debt without substantively new information.

Income Management customers empowered through information

Ms M, an Indigenous person in the NT, was granted an exemption from Income Management (IM) with the assistance of the Ombudsman’s office.

Ms M was not aware that she could apply for an exemption until she spoke to Ombudsman staff, who provided her with contact information for Centrelink. Centrelink administers the IM scheme on behalf of FaHCSIA. Ms M subsequently advised the Ombudsman’s office that Centrelink had refused her request for exemption and that she did not know why. The decision letter to Ms M provided no information about which part of the exemption test she had failed or her right to request a review of the decision.

The Ombudsman investigation revealed which part of the test Ms M had failed and Ombudsman staff provided an explanation to her. Ms M then provided additional information to Centrelink and was granted an exemption from IM.

Unreasonable delay truncated for Income Management customer

After an Ombudsman observation that Centrelink had not followed its own guidelines in relation to money incorrectly allocated to a third party, Mr N was immediately re-credited funds that had been transferred in error to the wrong community store.

Mr N lives in a remote Indigenous community. Under IM, he receives half his Centrelink payments, while Centrelink retains and administers the remaining portion to pay for his priority needs and expenses. Mr N complained to the Ombudsman’s office that Centrelink had told him it would take up to three weeks for his $119 to be recalled and re‑allocated to the correct store.

In response to Ombudsman enquiries, Centrelink acknowledged that it had failed to follow its own guidelines and Mr N’s money was re-credited to him immediately.

Department of Human Services: Child Support

Payments finally extracted from Child Support and provided to the righful owner

It was only after an Ombudsman investigation that Ms O was paid the $8619.78 that Child Support had collected from her former husband seven years earlier.

Ms O, who lives overseas, complained to the Ombudsman’s office that Child Support had not done enough to collect child support payments from her former husband in Australia. Child Support refused to talk to Ms O because it said it could only deal with the central authority in the country in which she resided. Child Support ignored Ms O’s letters about the matter.

The Ombudsman investigation revealed that Ms O’s former husband had made regular payments to Child Support, but it had failed to successfully transfer the money to Ms O. Despite having held one returned cheque for four years, it was not until the Ombudsman’s investigation that Child Support communicated with Ms O and the central authority and discovered that, due to its poor administration, Ms O had not in fact received the money that Child Support had collected for her.

Debt recovered from responsible party

Child Support cancelled penalty fees and provided a small refund to Mr P after he complained to the Ombudsman’s office, while an outstanding sum in child support payments was made to his former partner.

Mr P had a child support debt that he was certain he had paid. He suspected that his employer had not passed on to Child Support the money that it had deducted from his wages.

When the Ombudsman’s office investigated, Child Support said that Mr P’s employer was in liquidation and that it was attempting to obtain the missing payments from the liquidator. Child Support conceded that it had made multiple errors in its administration of Mr P’s case, including not responding to his letters.

Consequences of payment error sorted out

In response to an Ombudsman investigation, in late 2011 Centrelink reduced Ms Q’s Family Tax Benefit debt by $1500 and Child Support supported her application to the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) for it to waive the requirement for her to repay $6000 of child support that had been paid to her in error.

Ms Q came to the Ombudsman’s office because she was confused about why two debts had been raised against her—one to Centrelink and one to Child Support.

In 2008, Centrelink told Ms Q that she had been overpaid FTB of $1700 because of a $6000 lump sum that Child Support had paid to her in 2007. Ms Q was repaying this debt to Centrelink at $20 per fortnight.

In 2009, Child Support took Ms Q’s tax refund ($750) to recover an overpayment. When Ms Q questioned this, Child Support told her that she had to repay some money that it had paid to her in error. Child Support had discovered that the $6000 it received from Ms Q’s former husband (Mr Q) was money that he had deducted from his employees for their own child support. Child Support reversed the credit for Mr Q and paid the money to the correct people. Child Support then raised a $6000 debt against Ms Q but failed to tell her about it before taking her tax refund.

As a result of the Ombudsman investigation, Centrelink decided that it should not treat the $6000 as child support for FTB purposes.

Department of Human Services: Medicare

Insurance money refunded

Following an Ombudsman investigation, Medicare paid Mr R $7000 that had been withheld from him in error for 10 years. In addition, Medicare agreed to the Ombudsman’s suggestion that Mr R was entitled to interest on the sum and, accordingly, paid him $4500 in interest.

Medicare is entitled to recover any money it has paid in relation to an injury for which a person is later compensated. Mr R had been in an accident in 1997 for which he received compensation in 2000. By then, Mr R was subject to a guardianship order. The insurance company sent a portion of the settlement to Medicare ($7000). Medicare then sent a notice to Mr R’s guardian listing all the benefits he had received since suffering his compensable injury so that he could declare which benefits were for treatment of his injury. Medicare did not receive a response, so deemed all of the benefits in the notice to be related to Mr R’s compensable injury and thus recoverable. Medicare raised a debt of $15,000 against him.

Mr R became homeless and the guardian stopped acting for him. Over a period of 10 years, Medicare and Mr R periodically attempted to contact one another. In 2011, when Mr R tried, unsuccessfully, to get his Medicare records, he complained to the Ombudsman’s office.

The Ombudsman investigation revealed that Medicare had not sent the notice to the guardian within the statutory timeframe. This meant that the $15,000 was not recoverable and Mr R was entitled to have the $7000 refunded.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Incorrectly imposed charges repaid

The Ombudsman investigation of a complaint from a migration agent resulted in DIAC repaying $8240 to a visa applicant.

Mr S complained that DIAC failed to properly consider his client’s visa application because the DIAC case officer decided that the visa applicant did not have functional English. The case officer had made the assessment that Mr S’s client did not meet the criteria for functional English because the evidence that had been provided was not particularly recent. The case officer imposed a second Visa Application Charge (VAC2) which is payable if applicants do not have functional English.

The Ombudsman’s office asked DIAC to reconsider its decision to impose the second VAC. Upon review of the facts of the case, DIAC agreed that the decision to impose the second VAC had been made incorrectly.

Written review decision amended

Social Security Appeals Tribunal

The written record of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) review decision was corrected after the Ombudsman looked into the matter.

During an SSAT hearing about child support, Mr T and the other parent agreed that he would make certain child support payments until 2 December 2011. However, the SSAT’s written decision contained an error, and showed the date as 2 November 2011. As a result, Mr T’s child support assessment increased above the agreed rate to a higher rate from 2 November 2011 to 1 December 2011. When Mr T pointed this out to Child Support, he was told to contact the SSAT. When he contacted the SSAT, he was told to contact the Ombudsman’s office.

The Ombudsman’s office wrote to the SSAT to suggest that it consider using its statutory power to correct an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of a decision. In response, the SSAT advised that the member who presided over the review had decided to correct the date in the decision, which Child Support then implemented.

Administrative Improvement

Individual complaints can highlight a broader administrative problem that may affect other members of the community. In this situation, in keeping with the office’s objective of improving government administration, the Ombudsman may recommend that an agency implement a systemic change or improvement. Typical improvements include staff training, changing a process or procedure, amending information on a website or in publications or reviewing a cohort of decisions to see if they should be changed.

Administrative improvement may not necessarily achieve the outcome that an individual sought when they complained to the office, but it can lead to greater consistency and fairness.

Australian Federal Police

Improved conflict of interest management guidelines

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) established new guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest following an internal AFP review of a complaint investigated by the Ombudsman’s office.

The new guideline advises that no matters are to be assigned for investigation to AFP members who have had any involvement in the original incident unless the involvement was supervisory in nature and any conflict of interest is identified and can be reasonably managed.

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

Communications reviewed and new training introduced

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) responded to an Ombudsman investigation by improving its formal template letters, revising its procedures and providing relevant training to staff.

Mr U runs a pet supply business. He complained to the Ombudsman’s office about a letter he received from the APVMA advising him that he could not sell several identified products as they were not registered under the legislation regulating the sale of veterinary medicines.

The APVMA letter did not explain why the products had to be registered. It did, however, request Mr U provide information to APVMA about his sales and suppliers and warn that ‘failure to provide the information required will result in further compliance action’.

Following the Ombudsman investigation, the APVMA:ƒƒ

• agreed that when asking a person to restrain from conduct it should clearly explain why it considers the conduct to be a breach of the law
• accepted that the letter improperly suggested that Mr U was not required by law to provide the information, and failed to warn him that he did not have to provide any information that might tend to incriminate him
• revised its letter templates, internal work instructions and guidance for staff and introduced a new clearance procedure for correspondence
• arranged for the Australian Government Solicitor to provide procedural fairness training to staff.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

Agreement to update public information

An Ombudsman investigation led to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) updating its forms, letters, information materials and website to ensure information provided to the public is accurate.

APRA’s delegate asked Mr V to lodge a fresh application for the early release of his superannuation on compassionate grounds, even though he was not an Australian resident. Non-Australian residents are not able to obtain an early release on compassionate grounds.

This rule had been in place for two years by the time Mr V made his application, but it had not been reflected in APRA’s forms or on its website.

Australia Post

Consistency introduced to postal procedures

Australia Post aligned its retail arrangements with its postal terms and conditions after the Ombudsman brought an inconsistency to its attention.

An overseas coin collector complained to the Ombudsman’s office when he did not receive some coins and banknotes sent from Australia. Australia Post deemed the parcel lost but refused to pay compensation on the basis that sending ‘cash’ through international post was prohibited.

The Ombudsman investigation identified that Australia Post itself sold coins to Australian and overseas purchasers through its retail business arrangements with the Perth Mint and Royal Australian Mint. Australia Post acknowledged this practice was inconsistent with its terms and conditions and made changes to its practices. It no longer sends coins to international destinations.

Department of Finance and Deregulation

Decision correspondence to be sent direct to applicants

As a result of an Ombudsman investigation, Finance is taking steps to provide decisions direct to claimants, wherever practical and appropriate, in relation to applications to waive debts.

Ms W asked a government agency to waive a debt raised against her. However, the agency did not have the power to do so and forwarded her request to Finance to consider. Finance sent its decision to decline the request back to the agency rather than to Ms W. The agency advised Ms W’s representative of the Finance decision, who then advised Ms W.

Ms W sought review by the Ombudsman, but Finance declined to reconsider the decision. Ms W then asked Finance to provide her with reasons for its decision, but Finance declined to do so. Finance advised that Ms W’s request was outside the timeframe in which she could ask for a statement of reasons.

The Ombudsman’s office observed that Finance’s practice of corresponding with agencies rather than applicants meant that Finance could not be sure that applicants received timely or complete advice about decisions. Nor could Finance be sure that the information sheet sent with decision letters, which sets out a person’s post-decision options and relevant timeframes, was passed on. Finance acknowledged this and agreed to change its practices wherever practical and appropriate.

BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OUTCOMES

Some Ombudsman complaint investigations result in remedies that help individuals and improve public administration.

Australian Securities and Investment Commission

Commitment to keep website information up to date

ASIC has updated its media policy to ensure that its practice of updating media releases on its website to accurately reflect significant changes such as appeal decisions is reflected in a written policy document.

In June 2008, ASIC decided to ban Mr X from managing a corporation for two years. It issued a media release to that effect, which stated that Mr X had knowingly lodged false documents. Mr X applied to the AAT for a review of ASIC’s decision. In 2010, the AAT set aside ASIC’s decision and disqualified Mr X for one year only. In addition, the AAT rejected ASIC’s view that Mr X had knowingly lodged false documents, deciding instead that he had made an honest mistake.

Mr X complained to us that ASIC had not updated the 2008 media release on its website about his case after the AAT decision. Following an investigation that identified an oversight in implementing ASIC’s practice of updating media releases, ASIC amended the 2008 media release by removing the reference to knowing lodgement of false documents; explained that the AAT had varied the disqualification decision to a period of one year and included a clear direction to ASIC staff in its policy statement about the need to ensure media releases are updated.

Australia Post

Responsibility accepted for licensee actions

An Ombudsman investigation led to Australia Post accepting responsibility for the non-payment of a customer’s Telstra bills, making the payments and issuing a series of escalated warnings to the relevant post office licensee.

Ms Y complained to the Ombudsman’s office that a licensed post office failed to process payments of two Telstra bills totalling $878. Although Ms Y’s bills had been stamped ‘paid’, Australia Post found no record of the payments and declined to take further action.

Following our investigation, and taking into account other problems at the licensed post office, Australia Post accepted responsibility for the shortfalls in the post office’s staffing and processing practices.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Apprenticeships claims assessed against current criteria

Mr Z was granted a payment to which he was entitled and DEEWR updated its Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Program criteria information in response to the findings of an Ombudsman investigation.

Mr Z applied for a personal benefit payment under the program, but his application was incorrectly refused in the first instance and again upon review. Following the Ombudsman investigation, DEEWR acknowledged that it had failed to update its National Skills Needs List when the Australian Standard of Classification of Occupations was superseded by the Australian New Zealand Standards Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) in January 2010.

Accordingly, DEEWR:

• reassessed Mr Z’s application and granted him a ‘Tools for the Trade’ payment
• updated the National Skills Needs List to properly reflect the occupations classifications in the ANZSCO and published the revised list on the Australian Apprenticeships website
• updated the guidelines for the occupations that were affected.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink

Script amended to ensure the right questions are asked

Centrelink revised its carer payment ‘question and answer’ scripts in relation to overseas travel to remedy a problem identified during an Ombudsman investigation.

Mr and Mrs AA receive carer related payments for the care they provide to their disabled daughter. When they contacted Centrelink to explain that they needed to urgently travel overseas, they were told they could travel for 13 weeks without any impact on the payments. Centrelink did not ask Mr and Mrs AA if their daughter would be travelling with them. Upon realising that Mr and Mrs AA’s were travelling alone, Centrelink cancelled the payments and raised a debt against Mr and Mrs AA.

The Ombudsman investigation established that Centrelink had failed to ask Mr and Mrs AA about their plans for their daughter while they were away. Centrelink agreed to waive the debt and invited Mr and Mrs AA to claim compensation for the payments they missed out on because of its incorrect advice.

Department of Human Services: Medicare

Claim assessments based on full information

Mr AB received the medical rebates he was owed and Medicare reinforced to staff the correct procedures to follow when assessing claims after the Ombudsman made enquiries on Mr AB’s behalf.

Mr AB attended two regular therapy sessions at different times on the same day each week. He complained to the Ombudsman’s office because Medicare refused 11 of his electronic claims for the second service on each day, saying they were duplicates.

The Ombudsman investigation found that a combination of factors had contributed to the problem. Medicare officers had not read all the text in the electronic claim and the service provider made it clear that two separate services had been provided to Mr AB on a single day. Accordingly, Medicare reassessed Mr AB’s claims and paid him the rebates.

Medicare contacted Mr AB’s service provider to explain the information required for claims for patients receiving multiple services in a single day. Further, Medicare reminded its staff of the importance of reading the service text in full and of the policy for processing suspected duplicate claims.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Visa criteria correctly applied

DIAC apologised to Ms AC and Mr AD, carried out additional staff training and reviewed public information and correspondence to other concurrent visa applicants as a result of an Ombudsman investigation.

Ms AC, a citizen of the Russian Federation, applied for an Australian Partner Visa. She also applied for a Visitor Visa so that she could visit her partner, Mr AD, in Australia while her Partner visa was being processed. DIAC’s Moscow Post told Ms AC that she could not be issued a Visitor Visa until she had provided all the information required for the Partner Visa application, including medical and police checks, and met the requirements for the Partner Visa.

The Ombudsman’s office suggested to DIAC that it had inappropriately applied the Partner Visa criteria to the Visitor Visa application, for which there was no basis in policy or legislation. DIAC agreed. Subsequently, Ms AC was issued a Partner Visa.

Overseas students’ private education provider

Visas reinstated

A student whose visa was cancelled by DIAC as a result of incorrect education provider information had it reinstated following an Ombudsman investigation. The education provider responded by reviewing its records for the previous six months to identify any other errors.

Ms AE’s education agent enrolled her in two courses with two different education providers at the same time, although she only wished to study with one. Ms AE completed one course only to discover her visa had been cancelled after the second education provider reported her to DIAC for non-attendance. This should not have occurred, as Ms AE had never started the course. The provider also sent the notice advising Ms AE that she had been reported to DIAC to the wrong address. Consequently, DIAC set aside the visa cancellation.

On the Ombudsman’s recommendation, the education provider reviewed its records for the previous six months and identified a further 20 students who had been incorrectly reported to DIAC. Eight students had their enrolment reinstated and DIAC was notified of the other errors.

In addition, the education provider updated its attendance policy so that students now have their enrolment cancelled instead of being reported to DIAC for poor attendance. And it delivered training to staff on the correct procedures to be followed in the future.

Course fees refunded after visas denied

Fifteen students were paid full refunds totalling $119,356 and an education provider revised its refund policy in response to an Ombudsman investigation.

An agent complained to the Ombudsman’s office on behalf of 13 Chinese students, all of whom had been refused student visas, because their course fees had not been refunded. Education providers are required to refund fees within four weeks of a course start date if a student’s visa application is refused. Refusal of a visa prevents a student from commencing a course. The agent had regularly asked the education provider for fee refunds from September 2011 but after many months the fees had not been refunded and, contrary to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), the provider had not reported to DIAC that the students had been unable to commence their courses.

As a result of the Ombudsman investigation, the education provider is aware of the legislative requirements regarding refunds. The provider now contacts students who have not commenced a course on the start date to organise a new start date or arrange a refund within four weeks of the start date if a visa application has been refused.

Feature

Connecting with People who are Homeless

Homelessness is the hard reality for thousands of Australians—young people, older people, men, women and families with children are all represented among the homeless population. People without a permanent home are among those groups that are less likely to come to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office when they have a problem with a government agency. For many reasons, including being disengaged from the mainstream, access to government services can be difficult. Yet it is often people who are homeless who are most dependent on these services and who experience problems with the way some services are delivered.

The Ombudsman’s office wants to build a better understanding of the kinds of problems that homeless people confront in their dealings with government, and hearing and resolving complaints is a useful way to do this. The office has explored a few approaches to engagement, including liaising with welfare rights organisations and running complaint clinics in parallel with organisations that are already providing services to homeless people.

During the past couple of years, the Ombudsman has held regular clinics in Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, and participated in Homeless Connect nationally. An initiative of the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, the Homeless Connect Australia Program enables cities, towns and communities to join in events where people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness can receive a meal, medical and dental care, a haircut and hygiene services. Such events are an opportunity to share information with participants and provide a connection to other services such as housing, employment, government assistance and legal support that can lead to a more secure and stable life.

The small size of the Ombudsman’s office means that it’s simply not possible to run complaint clinics nationally. However, participating in Homeless Connect and similar events has helped staff in the office to better understand the barriers homeless people confront and allowed quicker and simpler cross-referrals between organisations providing different services.

Adelaide

Staff in the Adelaide office conduct a regular complaint clinic at the Hutt Street Centre on the third Thursday of each month. Run by The Daughters of Charity, the centre offers support, advice and practical help in a welcoming location. Ombudsman staff work collaboratively with social workers and other casework staff there, providing information about the Ombudsman’s role and receiving complaint referrals from them, or directly from people visiting the centre.

People going to the centre often hear about the Ombudsman complaint clinics from others, or from seeing the posters advertising the events. The people who come to the complaint clinics—usually two to four each time—would be very unlikely to come to the Ombudsman’s own office, so it’s an important way of connecting with them. Staff from the South Australian Ombudsman’s office often attends too, making it simpler to deal with matters across state and federal government agencies.

Brisbane

During 2011–12, Ombudsman staff ran monthly complaints clinics at the Brisbane Homelessness Service Centre (BHSC) and at Roma House, in partnership with the Queensland Ombudsman. BHSC provides information, support, advocacy, health, recreational and employment services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Roma House offers intensive support and accommodation to people experiencing homelessness in the Brisbane area, who may have been excluded from existing services, and who have complex needs.

In partnership with the Homeless Person’s Legal Clinic (based at the Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House), Ombudsman staff have delivered training to caseworkers employed by non-government organisations providing services across South East Queensland. This has helped to foster strong connections with—and referrals from—many ‘front line’ organisations, as well as more direct contacts with people who are homeless.

Sydney

The Sydney office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has been participating in the Woolloomooloo Integrated Services Hub (WISH) in inner city Sydney since April 2010. The WISH project, under the auspices of the Council of the City of Sydney, is a monthly event that provides a one-stop shop for people who are homeless to connect with a range of government and community services.

The ability to refer issues to other agencies and organisations in the same room and work together to resolve particular problems are just two of the many benefits of this project. As well as accepting individual complaints, Ombudsman staff are available to talk to people about how to deal with Australian government agencies more generally. For example, officers might provide information about which agencies provide which services, explain letters, or provide advice about how to approach particular problems with agencies.

At the last street count (February 2012), 310 people slept rough in the city of Sydney and another 451 occupied hostel beds for the night.