Section 5

Case Studies

In this chapter, we explore the theme of ‘good service delivery’ in Australian Government agencies through a range of case studies, based on complaints we investigated in 2012–13.

Dissatisfaction with the level of customer service from an agency is a common issue in the complaints we receive about all Australian Government agencies. The majority of these case studies illustrate initial poor service delivery, but the remedy for the complaint is also part of the agency’s overall service delivery. We do not expect an agency to achieve perfection first time, every time.

Good service delivery includes having:

We think it is crucial that an agency recognises that mistakes will be made even when it has these fundamental elements of good service delivery in place. It must therefore have robust processes to ensure that when mistakes happen, they can be identified and corrected promptly, with a minimum of fuss.

The case studies below illustrate the types of complaints we received and some of the outcomes that have been achieved for complainants, both individually and systemically.

Individual Remedies

Remedies for a complaint will vary depending on the issue complained about, the expectations of the complainant and the rules or framework that govern the decisions or actions that are the subject of the complaint.

In individual complaints, the range of remedies available may include a better explanation of the reasons for a decision, getting the decision changed, or the award of compensation.

Sometimes, an individual complaint can bring to light an administrative problem which will impact on many people subject to the administrative process or framework. In these cases our investigations often lead to systemic improvements.

The case studies in this chapter highlight some of the outcomes achieved for individuals and in wider reaching improvements in agency administration.

Department of Defence

Ex-serviceman’s war service medals

In 1949 World War II service medals were sent by the Department of Defence to an address in Sydney. Due to a council boundary change, the medals were never received by the ex-serviceman they were intended for. He passed away in 2010 without ever seeing the medals that were awarded to him.

Efforts by the ex-serviceman’s family to have the medals sent to them by the Department of Defence were unsuccessful. The explanation provided to the family was that the medals had been duly ‘issued’.

In September 2011, six decades after the medals were sent out, the ex-serviceman’s brother, Mr A, approached our office seeking assistance to obtain the medals. We encouraged Mr A to attempt to resolve the matter directly by putting his evidence of the council boundary change and non-delivery of the medals to the Directorate of Honours and Awards.

In November 2011, Mr A came back to our office noting that his efforts had been unsuccessful. We investigated the matter and advised the Department of Defence that, based on the information provided by the agency, we could not be satisfied that the medals had been issued.

Mr A provided our response to the Prime Minister’s Office. In May 2013, Mr A advised that the medals were being issued to the family.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink

Write-off of family tax benefit debt

Ms B received family tax benefit (FTB) for her children, which is paid subject to an income test. Each year, an FTB recipient and his or her partner must lodge their income tax returns to show that the FTB recipient was entitled to the payments they received from Centrelink for the financial year. Ms B’s partner had not lodged income tax returns for the financial years 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08. As a result, Centrelink raised a debt of around $56,000 against Ms B for the FTB she received in those years.

When Ms B separated from her partner in 2010, Centrelink decided to temporarily suspend (write off) recovery of her FTB debts. The temporary write-off was inadvertently cancelled on 15 March 2011. The error was partially corrected in September 2011 and the debts for the 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 financial years were again temporarily written off. However, during the period March 2011 to September 2011, Centrelink withheld all of Ms B’s FTB top-up payments and income tax refunds to recover her FTB overpayments.

As a result of our investigation, Centrelink fully corrected the error in October 2012. Centrelink wrote off the FTB debt for the 2004–05 financial year and returned approximately $9,800 to Ms B that had been incorrectly applied to her written-off debt. Centrelink also apologised to Ms B for its mistake.

Payments to deceased pensioner

Mrs C’s sister, Miss D, died in July 2011. Mrs C called Centrelink with advice about her sister’s death immediately after being informed by the police. A Centrelink officer called the funeral director who was arranging Miss D’s funeral. Even though Centrelink received confirmation that Miss D was dead, it took no action to cancel, or suspend Miss D’s disability support pension (DSP) because the funeral director could not provide the exact date of Miss D’s death.

Centrelink continued to pay Miss D for a further three-and–a-half months until the exact date of her death was made known. Mrs C says she did not receive any letters from Centrelink about her sister’s DSP during this time. Mrs C did not have access to her sister’s bank account until the estate was finalised in January 2012, and was unaware of the continued payments. She had assumed that Centrelink had taken appropriate action on the advice she had given.

In November 2011 Centrelink raised a debt of over $4,400 for the overpayment of DSP. It sent a debt notification letter to the executor of Miss D’s estate, which was addressed to Miss D’s former home address. Although Mrs C had a redirection order in place for her sister’s mail, she did not receive any correspondence from Centrelink. It was not until October 2012 when Centrelink wrote directly to Mrs C at her home address that she discovered the estate had been overpaid. Mrs C maintained that she had acted in good faith but Centrelink was not satisfied that she had done so and decided to recover the debt.

Following our investigation of her complaint, Centrelink reconsidered her request for a waiver of the debt due to administrative error. The debt was waived in full in February 2013.

In this case, there was no dispute that Miss D had died. The only fact in question was the exact date she had died. Had Centrelink suspended her DSP in August 2011, when the officer contacted the funeral director and confirmed that Miss D had died, the overpayment would have been for only 21 days rather than 73 days. The start date for the debt, if any, could have been assessed at a later point when the exact date of death was known.

Australia Post

Non-delivery of parcel

Ms E complained to Australia Post about a parcel which was sent to her address but not delivered. In response, Australia Post advised her that the contractor had confirmed the item was delivered. Ms E explained to Australia Post that the parcel was too large to fit in her mailbox and that her property was surrounded by a large fence. Ms E submitted photographs of her mailbox to Australia Post at its request but Australia Post did not contact her again as promised. Australia Post subsequently sent the sender a refund of postage which was inconsistent with its finding that the parcel had been delivered.

Following our investigation, Australia Post advised us that it had misinterpreted the photographic evidence Ms E had provided. An Australia Post staff member visited the property and confirmed that the parcel could not have been delivered to Ms E’s address and was likely to have been incorrectly delivered. As a result, Australia Post agreed to compensate the sender for the full value of the sent item.

Australian Taxation Office

Administrative errors on tax assessment

Mr F, a pensioner living in an aged care facility, contacted the Ombudsman as he was worried about a large debt he had incurred after lodging his annual income tax return. Debt collectors were pursuing him for payment of the debt but he had no means to pay.

Mr F complained to our office as he believed there was a mistake with his return as, instead of a small refund, he received a bill. Mr F had written to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about his tax return but he had not received a reply.

Our office asked the ATO to review the matter. The ATO, after considering Mr F’s age and circumstance, decided to place debt collection activity on hold while it completed the review.

The ATO determined that keying errors had occurred on Mr F’s tax return. The ATO corrected the errors and issued an amended assessment which provided a refund plus credit interest. The ATO also wrote to Mr F to advise him of the outcome of the review. Mr F wrote to our office to acknowledge the helpful assistance provided by the ATO Complaints area in resolving his issue.

Department of Human Services: Medicare

Claims for two services on the same day

Mr G complained that Medicare had rejected claims that he submitted for two separate services provided on the same day. This was not the first time Mr G had this problem, but Medicare had given very detailed instructions to him and the medical centre to make sure that it did not recur.

When we investigated Mr G’s complaint, we identified that the correct information was provided by the relevant medical centre, but Medicare staff had not followed correct procedure. Our contact in Medicare identified 11 specific errors in staff not reading the entire text of information provided by the medical centre. This meant Medicare mistook two separate services which did occur on the same day as an attempt to make a duplicate claim for the same service.

In response, Medicare apologised to Mr G and reminded its staff of the correct procedure for processing claims for multiple services on the same day. Medicare also gave Mr G a direct number of an officer to call if the problem happened again.

Incorrect rebate information

Mr H, who speaks little English, complained to our office in July 2012. Medicare had provided him with a handwritten quote stating that he would receive $727.70 for his Medicare rebate entitlement for medical treatment under the Enhanced Primary Care Scheme. Following treatment, Mr H lodged his claim with Medicare and received a rebate payment of $245.00. His complaint to Medicare was dismissed. It appears that Medicare did not consider providing an interpreter to ensure that Mr H was made fully aware of his entitlement in relation to a claim.

Medicare acknowledged that it provided Mr H with incorrect rebate information and that it was evident that he decided to proceed with dental work on the basis of this information. We asked Medicare to consider assisting Mr H to lodge a claim for compensation under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme, with the assistance of an interpreter.

In June 2013 Medicare advised that it had decided to offer compensation of $485.00 to Mr H. Mr H advised that he was happy with this outcome but not with the time it had taken.

Systemic Remedies

In some cases, the administrative error in one individual’s case has also occurred in a number of other cases. When this becomes apparent, we seek rectification of the problem as well as an outcome for the individual complainant. In many cases, complainants raise an issue with us even after they have received a satisfactory outcome, specifically so that a systemic problem can be corrected before it happens to anyone else.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink

Mailing of sensitive documents

Ms J complained that her documents for an Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal arrived in an envelope which was ripped and torn. Centrelink had sent them via normal post in a normal envelope. We investigated and learned that there was an informal practice of using normal envelopes and regular post. Registered post was considered too expensive unless the tribunal had made a confidentiality order or there was another feature that made the material particularly sensitive.

We did not consider it unreasonable for Centrelink to consider that registered post was too expensive. However, as a result of Ms J’s complaint, Centrelink has decided to institute use of ‘tough bags’ for transmission of tribunal documents. These should provide better protection for documents at minimal increased cost to Centrelink.

Australia Post

Disputed delivery of an eParcel

An item purchased online by Ms K was dispatched via eParcel. Australia Post records showed it was delivered and that a signature had been obtained.

Ms K told our office she did not receive the item: she was at work on the day of delivery and no-one else was at her home to sign for the item. Australia Post advised Ms K to ask the sender of the parcel to complain, which she did, and Australia Post provided a copy of the signature. The sender was satisfied that the item had been delivered, and chose not to take any further action. Australia Post said it would not investigate.

Our investigation found that Australia Post had no record of an initial contact from Ms K. However, her emails to the sender indicated she had obtained advice from Australia Post about how to pursue the matter with the sender.

Australia Post told our office that in cases of disputed signature and delivery, a certified copy of the signature should be obtained and an investigation should be logged. In addition, the delivery person should be contacted and attempts made to retrieve the parcel if it has been mis-delivered. In Ms K’s case, Australia Post did not follow these procedures and did not engage with the sender or Ms K.

If Australia Post had asked Ms K to provide evidence of her signature at an earlier stage, it is likely that the complaint could have been resolved sooner and without our involvement.

As a result of this complaint, Australia Post confirmed it had changed its procedures. Staff who receive a complaint about a disputed signature are now required to immediately record the complaint and investigate it with the relevant delivery office.

Contractor issues resolved

Ms L sent a ring valued at $1,000 to her sister, who did not receive it. When she complained, Australia Post claimed the customer had signed for the item but Ms L disputed this.

In response to our investigation, Australia Post acknowledged that it should have requested a copy of her sister’s signature when Ms L disputed the contractor’s advice. Australia Post provided feedback to the Team Manager in relation to this. Australia Post’s Security and Investigation group found other irregularities with signatures obtained by the contractor.

The contractor no longer works for Australia Post and has been placed on a list of people who will not be considered for future contracts. Australia Post agreed to pay Ms L discretionary compensation to the full value of the items.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Clothing for female detainees

When we visited an immigration detention facility in Darwin, detainees raised a concern about the suitability of the clothing issued to female detainees. The facility had a policy of providing only unisex clothing that included two long or short sleeved t-shirts, one pair of shorts and one pair of tracksuit pants regardless of gender. The absence of optional skirts and dresses for wear by females was raised with us during a group discussion with the detainees who expressed concerns about this practice, in particular:

When we raised these concerns with the Regional Management of the detention centre, we were advised that this practice would cease and that culturally appropriate female clothing suitable to tropical climates would be made available to the detainees.

Department of Human Services: Medicare

Long delay on Medicare payment

Ms M had been waiting for three months to receive a Medicare payment. She complained that when she contacted Medicare about the delay, she was told she may need to wait a further three months.

In response to our investigation, Medicare advised us that Ms M’s claim was for treatment over five years ago and that it could not pay her claim until it checked records held by another department to ensure that no prior claim had been made for the same treatment.

As a result of our investigation, Medicare processed Ms M’s claim and advised it would review its claim processes, including more efficient access to records.

Australian Taxation Office

Records needed checking and updating

Ms N contacted the ATO after discovering that her superannuation guarantee contributions had not been paid by her employer. Following an investigation, the ATO advised that the employer was under administration and suggested that Ms N contact the administrators to pursue the missing contributions.

Ms N contacted the ATO and advised them that the employer was no longer under administration but that her superannuation guarantee contributions had still not been paid. After further unsuccessful contact with the ATO, Ms N contacted the Ombudsman.

As a result of the Ombudsman investigation, the ATO searched relevant registration information and confirmed the administration had ended, as advised by Ms N. It updated its records and pursued recovery of the unpaid contributions. The ATO has undertaken to apologise to Ms N and to update its procedures to improve the process of checking and updating its records in these kinds of circumstances.

Automated system decisions

Our report, Automated-assistance in administrative decision-making better practice guide (2007), recognised that automated systems, which are increasingly being relied on by Australian Government agencies, play a significant and beneficial role in administrative decision making. However, it cautioned that care must be taken to ensure that their use supports administrative law values of lawfulness, fairness, rationality, openness and efficiency. Agencies also need to address access and equity concerns by continuing to provide alternatives to automated assistance, such as phone and face-to-face services.

The case studies below highlight the importance of having a mechanism for addressing any inadequacies or faults with automated systems or instituting a temporary manual workaround to ensure there is not undue delay where a customer is likely to suffer adversely.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink and Child Support

Data integrity across programs

The following two case studies demonstrate problems in the transfer of data between Centrelink and Child Support under the ‘alignment of care’ process. The ‘alignment of care’ initiative was intended to remove the need for parents and carers to separately advise parts of the Department of Human Services (DHS)—Child Support and Centrelink—when their children’s care arrangements change. It was also intended to ensure that the two parts of DHS use the same information: Child Support for the purposes of payment of the child support liability between parents; and Centrelink to ensure that the correct family tax benefit (FTB) is paid based on the percentage of time the child spends with each parent.

Computer glitch with exchange of care data

Ms O complained to this office on 13 April 2012 that her child support case was ended from the same date that it started due to what Centrelink called a ‘data integrity issue’. This information was automatically transferred to Centrelink in its usual exchange of care data, and consequently created an overpayment of her FTB. Centrelink asked Ms O to start paying back the overpayment of $2,600 while it investigated the problem.

Although Centrelink was aware from 30 March 2012 that the overpayment was created by an error, it decided to delay correcting Ms O’s FTB payments until Child Support had resolved the ‘data integrity issue’ and restored her child support entitlement. This is despite Ms O contacting Centrelink on 16 April and 24 April 2012.

Our investigation revealed that although Child Support had completed a submission for correcting the errors on 20 April 2012, and despite Ms O advising that she was in financial hardship, Child Support did not expedite the resolution of the issue nor contact Centrelink to discuss a workaround to reinstate her FTB. Child Support approved the correcting errors submission of 23 May 2012 and Ms O was paid her entitlements.

Data processing error

Mr P contacted this office on 31 October 2012 because Centrelink had taken his tax refund to pay for a debt it had raised for an apparent overpayment of FTB. Mr P had contacted Centrelink on 8 October 2012 to advise that it had incorrectly recorded the care percentage for his children which had resulted in the incorrect calculation of his FTB entitlements and a resulting debt. His telephone call to Centrelink was disconnected before the problem was sorted.

Centrelink sent Mr P a form to complete as it had understood that Mr P had wanted to inform them of a change to his care percentage, rather than make a correction. Mr P contacted Centrelink again on 25 October 2012 and stated he should not have to complete the form as the shared care information recorded on his Centrelink record was incorrect.

On 30 October 2012 Centrelink amended the shared care percentage effective from 31 January 2012. When this data was transmitted to Child Support, Child Support amended their records but erroneously deleted previous care information for two of Mr P’s children. Child Support’s incorrect information was then transferred back to the Family Assistance Office.

As a result of our investigation, DHS confirmed that there was a known system error which had occurred on Mr P’s case. While working on a system resolution, DHS instituted a manual workaround to ensure that Mr P received the correct payment. They also sent around an internal message to ensure that all staff were made aware of the manual workaround that was available.

Computer error leads to hardship

Ms Q advised our office in July 2012 that Centrelink had raised a debt of about $33,000 against her in December 2011 and ceased paying her FTB and parenting payment (single). She had queried the raising of the debt and the cessation of her payments and said that Centrelink conceded those actions were undertaken in error.

Ms Q said Centrelink described the problem as an ‘IT error’ and said it would be fixed and her payments reinstated. However, Ms Q advised our office that the problem had still not been fixed by July 2012. Ms Q said she made calls and sent emails to Centrelink every few weeks about the problem, without resolution.

Ms Q told us that without her Centrelink payments she was not able to provide for her son, who subsequently moved to live with his father in March 2012. She said that she was also unable to afford to pay her rent and moved out of her home of 12 years. Ms Q told us that recovery of the debts was due to commence in November 2012 by garnishee from her wages.

Centrelink confirmed that a data integrity problem compromised Ms Q’s record, resulting in an incorrect automatic Determination that her child was not an eligible FTB child, and caused the re-reconciliation of Ms Q’s FTB payments for the 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 income years and the creation of debts for those years. Centrelink confirmed that the data integrity problem had been identified in December 2011 and referred for technical assistance at that time, and Ms Q was verbally advised of the problem.

In response to our investigation, Centrelink reduced to zero the three FTB debts for the 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 income years. However, Ms Q subsequently advised our office in August 2012 that she had a new FTB debt of $4,837.84 raised against her for the 2011–12 income year. Centrelink confirmed that the problem had recurred with the 2011–12 year. It again temporarily wrote off the debt before reducing it to zero in September 2012. Centrelink also made back-payments to Ms Q of FTB amounting to $302 and $883, and advised us that all matters arising out of the data integrity problem had been resolved. At the conclusion of our investigation, Centrelink apologised to Ms Q for its delay in correcting the data error.

Active management of unresolved difficult cases

As noted earlier, we believe one of the hallmarks of good administration and service delivery is not that no mistakes are made, but that agencies show active and timely management of complex cases.

Department of Health and Ageing

Sub-standard aged care services for Indigenous people

Mr R had complained to the Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) on a number of occasions about sub-standard aged care services being delivered to residents in a remote Indigenous community. DOHA was the agency responsible for funding the services.

Mr R contacted our office saying his complaints had not been adequately dealt with, and expressing concern that the elderly people in the community were not receiving the necessary services. As a result, staff at the Indigenous art centre had stepped in to fill the gap by helping to shower, clothe, manage hygiene and transport the elderly around the community.

DOHA told us they had been aware of the service problems for some time and they had been actively working with the provider to improve the quality of its services for elderly people in the community. Following our enquiries, DOHA addressed the service problems by transferring the responsibility to another established aged care provider with the capacity to deliver the required services.

Cross-agency issues

Many Australian Government agencies work collaboratively, including sharing research and data, to deliver government programs and services under a whole-of-government approach. This can happen informally or—more usually—through inter-agency agreements such as memoranda of understanding. As shown in the complaints of Ms O and Ms Q above, there is data exchange between Centrelink and Child Support programs in DHS. This also occurs between Centrelink and other agencies, such as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), as outlined below.

Centrelink and Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Official birth date dispute

Ms S contacted us in late 2011 after Centrelink suspended her Youth Allowance payments. Centrelink had received information from DIAC that showed Ms S’s date of birth was different from the date in Centrelink’s records. DIAC’s records said she was born in 1996, while Centrelink’s records said she was born in 1987. Ms S said that both dates were wrong and she was actually born in 1990.

Ms S had been receiving Youth Allowance from Centrelink since she arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2004. Ms S did not have a passport or a birth certificate, but given that she had finished secondary education and was in her second year at university, it seemed unlikely that DIAC’s records were correct as this would mean she was now only 16 years old.

When we started our investigation, Centrelink conceded that DIAC’s date of birth was probably not correct, but said it was obliged to adopt DIAC’s date of birth because it was the ‘official’ date for a person born overseas. Centrelink told us that it could not restore Ms S’s Youth Allowance unless and until DIAC changed Ms S’s ’official’ date of birth. DIAC had refused to change its records, because although it accepted its records were wrong, it was not satisfied that Ms S’s claim that she was born in 1990 was correct, because it did not consider her documents reliable.

Ms S applied to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for a review of DIAC’s decision. We told Centrelink that we considered it was unfair for them to refuse to pay Ms S while this review was being conducted, and Centrelink restored Ms S’s Youth Allowance.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner eventually decided that DIAC’s record of Ms S’s date of birth was wrong and changed Ms S’s ‘official’ date of birth. Centrelink amended its records accordingly. Centrelink has now revised its procedures so that people in Ms S’s situation would not be left without an income while they attempt to correct their official date of birth.

Failure of data transfer

Ms T complained to this office on 31 August 2012, as she had not received her FTB lump sum payment from Centrelink and was in severe financial hardship, including being behind on her rent.

Lump sum FTB is paid at the end of the financial year, on the basis of information from a tax assessment completed by the ATO and automatically transferred to Centrelink. Ms T was told conflicting information from the ATO and Centrelink about where the process was up to. The ATO had told Ms T that the information had been transferred twice to Centrelink on 10 August and 23 August 2012, but on 4 September Centrelink advised her that it still had not received the data.

It was not possible to clearly identify which agency was primarily responsible for the failure of the data transfer, but we believe Centrelink should have taken more responsibility to attempt to find a solution that would enable Ms T to be paid her FTB entitlement more quickly.

Parenting payment mistakenly stopped

Ms U’s parenting payment stopped as the Centrelink system suddenly considered that she was no longer qualified. Centrelink told her that the matter was a ‘glitch in the system’ and that she should be qualified for parenting payment, but it could not pay her until the glitch was fixed. After complaining to our office and already going without payments (and having to contact charitable organisations to obtain food for herself and her young daughter) for six days, Centrelink was able to re-grant her payment.

An investigation by our office showed that it was not a ‘glitch in the system’ preventing payment, but a situation where her payment was mistakenly automatically cancelled. The time taken to provide Ms U with a payment was due to Centrelink needing to obtain policy advice from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to Ms U’s ongoing qualification.

Centrelink did provide social worker support and some emergency financial assistance to Ms U while it investigated why her parenting payment had stopped. However, it accepted that it did not take reasonable steps to initiate a solution to this problem in a more timely manner and advised that it regretted the inconvenience and financial hardship caused to Ms U.

Unreasonable delay

Unreasonable delay is an example of shortcomings in decision making that leads to adverse outcomes, as illustrated in the complaints below.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Inaction delays refund

Mr V applied for a citizenship certificate and paid the required fee of $60. He was advised by DIAC that he was entitled to a refund of the $60 fee due to his name being displayed incorrectly on the certificate produced. However, after many months the fee had not been refunded to him. DIAC had advised Mr V that the delay was due to a technical problem.

After making the complaint to us, Mr V’s money was refunded. However, we decided to investigate to determine the cause of the delay, which was more than six months. DIAC responded by saying that although there were some obstacles to be overcome, the fundamental cause of the delay was inaction rather than any technical problem. DIAC provided Mr V with a formal written apology and counselled its staff in relation to escalating such matters in future.

Australian Taxation Office

Income tax return delay

Mr W lodged his income tax return through a tax agent and was expecting a large return. Mr W advised that he was homeless and was waiting on the refund to enable him to resolve this issue.

His income tax return was delayed, and efforts to expedite the processing of the return under hardship arrangements were unsuccessful. Mr W then complained to the Ombudsman.

Following our contact, ATO Complaints ensured that Mr W’s claim was finalised and that payment was processed manually and credited to his tax agent’s trust account.

Complex decision making

Transparency in decision making is essential to ensure customers can access any review rights they may have. Agencies also need to analyse wrong decisions to find out whether there are any systemic problems that need to be addressed, or policy or legislative changes to be considered, as demonstrated in these case studies.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink and Child Support

Family Tax Benefit confusion

Ms X complained to us that her FTB had been reduced, and she did not understand why. The letters she received from Centrelink advised her of the new reduced rate of FTB and contained the statements that her rate ‘includes affecting maintenance’ and ’the amount of child support you receive may reduce your payments’. Ms X continued to receive the same amount of child support as before, which she collected privately from her former partner.

Our investigation found that Centrelink had retrospectively reduced Ms X’s FTB because Child Support had amended and increased her child support entitlement following an investigation into her former partner’s income. Ms X had not received Child Support’s letters advising her of her increased entitlement to child support and was now being paid FTB on the basis that she had or would collect the increased amount of child support. This was incorrect.

As a result of our investigation, Centrelink reassessed Ms X’s FTB and cancelled the debt that it raised on the assumption that she had already collected the child support from her former partner. Ms X has now asked Child Support to take over collecting from her former partner on her behalf.

Importance of good communication

Good service delivery to customers relies on clear communication between the agency and the consumer. Agency decisions will only be correct if they are based on complete and accurate information from the customer. In order to know what they must tell the agency, the customer needs to be supported by accurate, timely advice from the agency. This advice can be given orally, whether on the telephone, or in person, or through printed information provided on websites, in brochures and through individual correspondence.

Department of Human Services: Centrelink

Missing information in customer letters

Ms Y complained to this office on 16 November 2012 that Centrelink had been assessing her rate of disability support pension (DSP) based on out-of-date information about her partner’s periodic compensation payments. Those payments had ceased on 27 March 2009 but continued to be recorded on Ms Y’s Centrelink record as her partner’s ‘other income’, even after Centrelink removed the information from the periodic compensation screen.

Ms Y applied for compensation under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme, and Centrelink agreed to compensate her for 75% of her loss on the basis that she had not queried the amount included under ‘other income’ in her original grant of DSP letter. We were concerned that subsequent letters to the grant letter did not include information about all types of income used in the assessment of her DSP entitlement.

Customer’s debt confusion

Ms Z complained to us that her FTB had not been paid as she had not completed her tax returns. She was in financial difficulty and was about to be made homeless. She had a substantial debt which she did not understand which she was paying off and did not know whether she had asked Centrelink to review the debt. When she contacted Centrelink she was told she would need to lodge her tax returns, which she did, but she did not receive her FTB payment when expected. When she did receive her FTB, most of it was taken to pay off the debt.

As part of our investigation, we asked Centrelink to contact Ms Z and explain the debt verbally and in writing. Centrelink sent Ms Z a detailed letter explaining what the debts were for and how they arose, and instigated a review. Ms Z said that she now understood the debts and was in a better position to understand what she was appealing.

Australian Taxation Office

Audit issues

Mr AA, a tax agent, lodged an income tax return for his client. After two months, the ATO wrote to the client to advise the return was subject to audit checks. The ATO asked him to provide receipts to substantiate some of the deductions claimed.

The client provided the requested information within the agreed timeframes. After not hearing further from the ATO four months later, Mr AA wrote to the ATO and asked for an update on the progress of the audit, but did not receive a reply. One month later, Mr AA wrote again and the ATO responded with a letter advising the outcome of the audit. Some deductions were disallowed and the client was issued with a notice of assessment, which included penalties.

Mr AA complained to the ATO about the delays and stated that some adjustments to his deductions were made without seeking further information. Mr AA was not satisfied with the response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Following our contact, the ATO provided a full explanation of the adjustments and acknowledged the errors and delays. The ATO apologised to Mr AA and his client and offered support to correct the errors through the objection process.

Consistency of decision making

Although policies should not be applied inflexibly, it is important that they guide the decision maker to ensure consistency of decision making. Customers should also be able to rely on a department applying its procedures consistently. One of the hallmarks of good customer service is when customers feel that they are treated with respect, and their views are listened to, sought out and responded to.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Policy not followed

Mr BB lodged a Subclass 119 Visa application on 29 June 2012, the second last day before this subclass of visa was discontinued. Due to a large volume of applications received at that time, DIAC did not process the application until 6 July 2012. His credit card payment for the visa fee was declined and, as a result, his application was treated as not valid. As the Subclass 119 Visa no longer existed, the effect of that decision was that Mr BB could not reapply for that visa.

During our investigation, we discovered that DIAC had not followed its policy which suggested that an applicant should be contacted at least twice over a period of two days to enable rectification of an application that would otherwise be invalid. On reconsideration, DIAC agreed to contact Mr BB and give him the opportunity to rectify the application.

Identity confusion

Mr CC became an Australian citizen in 1972. He recently applied for an Australian passport and was advised that he first needed to apply for evidence of Australian citizenship. However Mr CC, as is common for people of his cultural background, has a number of middle names which are not recorded in the same way on each of his identity documents.

DIAC returned Mr CC’s application for evidence of citizenship to him with the advice that he would need to provide all identity documents in his current legal name. Mr CC provided DIAC with a declaration indicating that he is known by different names. However, DIAC was still not satisfied about Mr CC’s identity. Mr CC was concerned, as he was due to travel outside Australia.

Our office contacted DIAC and confirmed that it was actively working on Mr CC’s case. DIAC requested additional information from Mr CC which was sufficient to satisfy the delegate that he was entitled to a citizenship certificate, and worked with him and other agencies to ensure he was able to obtain a passport. Cases such as this, involving clients from different cultural backgrounds with different naming conventions, have provided useful training material for DIAC officers.

Inconsistent agency outcomes

The following two complaints about overseas students illustrate different responses to complaints between educational providers.

Overseas students

Positive service delivery and speedy rectification

An overseas student, Mr DD, contacted this office complaining that his Vocational Education and Training provider had refused his application to transfer to another education provider and was taking no action on his refund request.

We investigated and found that Mr DD had applied to transfer to a course that was not starting for more than two months, which was too big a gap to satisfy the conditions of his Student Visa. As a result, the provider had asked him to obtain another confirmation of enrolment for a course starting sooner, which he had just done.

When we contacted the provider, they had already acted on the new enrolment document, granting the transfer and approving the refund. The speed with which Mr DD’s applications were processed was an example of positive service delivery by a private education provider.

Agency delays refund

We investigated a complaint from an overseas student, Mr EE, who had been granted a conditional enrolment into Year 10 high school studies but had then failed to meet the required English language proficiency entry level after completing an English course with the same provider. He applied to withdraw and receive a refund for the high school course which he could not commence. However, the provider refused to pay him a refund, saying he had to study its English course instead.

Mr EE’s brother complained to our office and we investigated the matter. We found the provider appeared to have breached several standards of the National Code of Practice for Education Providers, including accepting an enrolment agreement signed by an under-18-year-old instead of his parents and failing to release Mr EE to study at any English college he chose after he failed to meet the English entry requirement for the high school course.

We recommended the provider release Mr EE to study with another provider and pay Mr EE a refund as the enrolment agreement was invalid. The provider then took two months to pay the refund, despite our advice that they were obliged by law to do so within four weeks. We told the provider that if similar issues arise in the future, we may make a public disclosure to the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

Different complaints’ processes

The Ombudsman promotes agencies developing their own complaint service which accepts complaints as core business providing valuable material to inform improvement to service delivery. Our emphasis is on referring complaints back to the agency to give it the opportunity to resolve the complaint first. The following complaints to the Ombudsman highlight agency differences in handling complaints.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Visa confusion

Ms FF, partner of Mr GG, an Australian citizen, was granted a Provisional Partner Visa in January 2010. Ms FF’s two dependent children were included in the visa. It was a condition of the children’s visas that they enter Australia by 25 September 2010. However, for personal reasons Mr GG and Ms FF chose not to bring the children to Australia by this date. In April 2012, Ms FF applied for a Permanent Partner Visa, with the children as secondary applicants. In the process of assessing the application, DIAC found that the children had not entered Australia at all.

DIAC gave advice on options, including that the children could be removed from the current Permanent Visa application so that Ms FF’s application could go ahead and then new visa arrangements could be made for the children if and when it was decided they were going to migrate to Australia.

Ms FF reluctantly withdrew the children from the Permanent Visa application and her visa was granted immediately.

Mr GG, concerned about whether the advice about removing the children from the application was correct, attempted to clarify the matter with DIAC. After the exchange of some correspondence and telephone contact, he was advised that DIAC had provided correct advice and would not be responding to the issue again.

We investigated and found that DIAC had not advised Ms FF of all the options available, and the full impacts of all these options on the family, and that Ms FF did not understand that it may not have been necessary to remove the children from the application. DIAC accepted that its incomplete advice to Mr GG and Ms FF about the options available in respect of the children’s visa led to less than optimal outcomes.

DIAC reviewed how the problem with the advice arose and agreed to apologise to the family.

Lost complaint about settlement

When Ms HH arrived in Australia under the humanitarian program, she and her family were settled in Town X with the assistance of a DIAC-funded humanitarian settlement service. Ms HH contacted our office and complained that she felt unsafe in Town X and wanted to move to Town Y, but that neither DIAC nor the settlement service were helping her.

When our office contacted DIAC, they confirmed they had no record of Ms HH lodging a complaint with them. DIAC also explained that the settlement service was only funded to arrange accommodation for each client once—but that there was a process to provide additional funding in certain circumstances.

DIAC contacted the settlement service about the matter and between them they were able to establish the basis of Ms HH’s concerns. DIAC advised the settlement service to submit to them a request for duplication of services, along with supporting documentation. DIAC advised that they would then make a decision about whether or not to support duplication of services.

DIAC also advised that the settlement service had contacted a community organisation in Town Y to assist with finding the relevant real estate agent to locate appropriate accommodation.

Department of Human Services: Medicare

Failure to recognise a review request

Mrs JJ complained about a debt Medicare raised for rebates for treatment her husband received under his mental health treatment plan without a valid referral. Mr and Mrs JJ were unaware of the problem with the referral and Medicare incorrectly paid claims for Mr JJ’s services, but it was now seeking to recover $1,800 from Mrs JJ (as the claimant).

As part of the correspondence between Mrs JJ and Medicare, a letter she sent in June 2012 was treated as a freedom of information (FOI) request. While there was information in the letter that would suggest Mrs JJ may have been making an FOI request, in the circumstances it could also have been treated as a review request. By treating it only as an FOI request, Medicare inadvertently delayed the review process. As a result of our investigation, Medicare agreed to conduct a review of the debt and decided not to recover it from Mrs JJ.

Australia Post

Redirection failure

Ms KK requested a 10-month redirection of her mail but the redirection failed. She contacted our office six months after the redirection was supposed to start, having still received no redirected mail. Ms KK had complained to Australia Post a number of times, and each time Australia Post advised that the redirection was working.

Following our investigation, Australia Post identified deficiencies in the handling of Ms KK’s complaint, established the cause of the ongoing failure, and refunded the total redirection fee to Ms KK.

Overseas students

Internal appeal the first step

An overseas student, Mr LL, contacted our office to complain that his education provider intended to report him for poor attendance. He also alleged the provider’s education services were of poor quality.

We transferred the quality aspects of his complaint to the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority for consideration. We contacted the provider regarding the attendance matter and confirmed the student had not yet accessed the provider’s internal complaints and appeals process, with the deadline due to end the next day.

The provider agreed to give Mr LL a one-week extension to lodge an internal appeal. This represents good service delivery and encourages students to access their provider’s internal complaints and appeals processes to try to resolve issues directly with their provider in the first instance. They can then contact our office if they are unsuccessful.

Department of Human Services: warm transfers for vulnerable customers

Where callers have not pursued their complaint with an agency’s internal complaint service, we generally refer them back to the agency to do so. Over the past year, we have developed a practice of ‘warm transfers’ where vulnerable callers are transferred directly to the Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS will make contact with the caller within three days or less if the matter is urgent. With their permission, callers are transferred under this arrangement if they are homeless, without payments or suffering financial hardship due to a decision of DHS.

Under this arrangement, we do not investigate the complaint, but callers are invited to contact the Ombudsman if their complaint is not resolved through this process. We followed up a number of people who had been transferred in this way to check that the process was working. Most people had received contact from DHS within the timeframe we had specified and reported that their complaint had been resolved. Some callers reported that the process had led to a speedy resolution of a problem they had tried to sort out with Centrelink but had been unable to for a variety of reasons. These included difficulty with access through phone delays and an inability to access face-to-face services due to isolation, disability and other issues. The complaints below show positive outcomes experienced by callers transferred through this process.

Payment delay resolved

Ms MM had become the sole carer of her children for the past two months and found herself in the position of having no money to buy food or pay rent. Centrelink was still paying family tax benefit (FTB) to the children’s father who no longer had care of the children. Ms MM had applied for FTB but had been told by Centrelink she wouldn’t get any payments and had to return the children to live with their step-mother, with whom they had lived while their father was in prison. Ms MM’s mother said she had been supporting her daughter but had since run out of money herself.

Ms MM provided Centrelink with documents from both maternal and paternal grandmothers, school enrolment forms and other material which showed that Ms MM had care of the children. Ms MM and her mother said they had many contacts with Centrelink, but had been told conflicting stories and were at the end of their tether. Ms MM was also unhappy that the children’s father has been paid the Schoolkids Bonus when he did not have care of the children and had not made any contribution to their school costs.

We transferred the complaint directly to Centrelink. Ms MM contacted us two weeks later to thank us for referring the complaint, and to advise us that Centrelink had contacted her within two hours of the complaint being referred and had sorted out her complaint very quickly.

Money returned to homeless customer

Mr NN, who has a mental illness, lodged tax returns for 14 years through a tax agent and expected a significant refund. At Centrelink’s request, the ATO withheld $8,700 from his refund to recover a Centrelink debt. When Mr NN called our office he was homeless, staying in a backpackers’ hostel and had no money for food. He had been hoping to use the refund to get himself established somewhere and to pay off traffic fines and regain his driver’s licence. He told us that he was trying to get a Newstart Allowance but had to walk 10 kilometres in 35-degree heat to get to a Centrelink office.

We asked Centrelink to contact Mr NN within 24 hours. Centrelink immediately granted Mr NN an emergency payment of $100 to cover food and taxis. Two days later, Centrelink advised us that they had granted Mr NN the Newstart Allowance (backdated for two weeks) and provided a payment of $588.80 in arrears. Centrelink advised that Mr NN may also be entitled to rental assistance arrears.

Centrelink advised that they returned $4,000 of the tax return to Mr NN, and he advised us that the money was in his bank account that same morning. Mr NN said he was happy with the outcome and thanked our office.

Skip to main content
    0 results available.
      0 results available.
      language assistant menu topper outer language assistant menu topper inner

      Read documents in your language

      If you need more translations, please contact us via: 1300 362 072 or ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

      Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2012—13 | Section 5

      Section 5

      Case Studies

      In this chapter, we explore the theme of ‘good service delivery’ in Australian Government agencies through a range of case studies, based on complaints we investigated in 2012–13.

      Dissatisfaction with the level of customer service from an agency is a common issue in the complaints we receive about all Australian Government agencies. The majority of these case studies illustrate initial poor service delivery, but the remedy for the complaint is also part of the agency’s overall service delivery. We do not expect an agency to achieve perfection first time, every time.

      Good service delivery includes having:

      • clear and accurate information available for customers about the services they can access
      • clear policies and procedures to guide staff responsible for dealing with customers and making decisions
      • training for staff so they understand what is expected of them
      • having adequate resources (people, computers, telephones and offices)
      • having mechanisms to address issues as they arise, including a mechanism for dealing with complaints.

      We think it is crucial that an agency recognises that mistakes will be made even when it has these fundamental elements of good service delivery in place. It must therefore have robust processes to ensure that when mistakes happen, they can be identified and corrected promptly, with a minimum of fuss.

      The case studies below illustrate the types of complaints we received and some of the outcomes that have been achieved for complainants, both individually and systemically.

      Individual Remedies

      Remedies for a complaint will vary depending on the issue complained about, the expectations of the complainant and the rules or framework that govern the decisions or actions that are the subject of the complaint.

      In individual complaints, the range of remedies available may include a better explanation of the reasons for a decision, getting the decision changed, or the award of compensation.

      Sometimes, an individual complaint can bring to light an administrative problem which will impact on many people subject to the administrative process or framework. In these cases our investigations often lead to systemic improvements.

      The case studies in this chapter highlight some of the outcomes achieved for individuals and in wider reaching improvements in agency administration.

      Department of Defence

      Ex-serviceman’s war service medals

      In 1949 World War II service medals were sent by the Department of Defence to an address in Sydney. Due to a council boundary change, the medals were never received by the ex-serviceman they were intended for. He passed away in 2010 without ever seeing the medals that were awarded to him.

      Efforts by the ex-serviceman’s family to have the medals sent to them by the Department of Defence were unsuccessful. The explanation provided to the family was that the medals had been duly ‘issued’.

      In September 2011, six decades after the medals were sent out, the ex-serviceman’s brother, Mr A, approached our office seeking assistance to obtain the medals. We encouraged Mr A to attempt to resolve the matter directly by putting his evidence of the council boundary change and non-delivery of the medals to the Directorate of Honours and Awards.

      In November 2011, Mr A came back to our office noting that his efforts had been unsuccessful. We investigated the matter and advised the Department of Defence that, based on the information provided by the agency, we could not be satisfied that the medals had been issued.

      Mr A provided our response to the Prime Minister’s Office. In May 2013, Mr A advised that the medals were being issued to the family.

      Department of Human Services: Centrelink

      Write-off of family tax benefit debt

      Ms B received family tax benefit (FTB) for her children, which is paid subject to an income test. Each year, an FTB recipient and his or her partner must lodge their income tax returns to show that the FTB recipient was entitled to the payments they received from Centrelink for the financial year. Ms B’s partner had not lodged income tax returns for the financial years 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08. As a result, Centrelink raised a debt of around $56,000 against Ms B for the FTB she received in those years.

      When Ms B separated from her partner in 2010, Centrelink decided to temporarily suspend (write off) recovery of her FTB debts. The temporary write-off was inadvertently cancelled on 15 March 2011. The error was partially corrected in September 2011 and the debts for the 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 financial years were again temporarily written off. However, during the period March 2011 to September 2011, Centrelink withheld all of Ms B’s FTB top-up payments and income tax refunds to recover her FTB overpayments.

      As a result of our investigation, Centrelink fully corrected the error in October 2012. Centrelink wrote off the FTB debt for the 2004–05 financial year and returned approximately $9,800 to Ms B that had been incorrectly applied to her written-off debt. Centrelink also apologised to Ms B for its mistake.

      Payments to deceased pensioner

      Mrs C’s sister, Miss D, died in July 2011. Mrs C called Centrelink with advice about her sister’s death immediately after being informed by the police. A Centrelink officer called the funeral director who was arranging Miss D’s funeral. Even though Centrelink received confirmation that Miss D was dead, it took no action to cancel, or suspend Miss D’s disability support pension (DSP) because the funeral director could not provide the exact date of Miss D’s death.

      Centrelink continued to pay Miss D for a further three-and–a-half months until the exact date of her death was made known. Mrs C says she did not receive any letters from Centrelink about her sister’s DSP during this time. Mrs C did not have access to her sister’s bank account until the estate was finalised in January 2012, and was unaware of the continued payments. She had assumed that Centrelink had taken appropriate action on the advice she had given.

      In November 2011 Centrelink raised a debt of over $4,400 for the overpayment of DSP. It sent a debt notification letter to the executor of Miss D’s estate, which was addressed to Miss D’s former home address. Although Mrs C had a redirection order in place for her sister’s mail, she did not receive any correspondence from Centrelink. It was not until October 2012 when Centrelink wrote directly to Mrs C at her home address that she discovered the estate had been overpaid. Mrs C maintained that she had acted in good faith but Centrelink was not satisfied that she had done so and decided to recover the debt.

      Following our investigation of her complaint, Centrelink reconsidered her request for a waiver of the debt due to administrative error. The debt was waived in full in February 2013.

      In this case, there was no dispute that Miss D had died. The only fact in question was the exact date she had died. Had Centrelink suspended her DSP in August 2011, when the officer contacted the funeral director and confirmed that Miss D had died, the overpayment would have been for only 21 days rather than 73 days. The start date for the debt, if any, could have been assessed at a later point when the exact date of death was known.

      Australia Post

      Non-delivery of parcel

      Ms E complained to Australia Post about a parcel which was sent to her address but not delivered. In response, Australia Post advised her that the contractor had confirmed the item was delivered. Ms E explained to Australia Post that the parcel was too large to fit in her mailbox and that her property was surrounded by a large fence. Ms E submitted photographs of her mailbox to Australia Post at its request but Australia Post did not contact her again as promised. Australia Post subsequently sent the sender a refund of postage which was inconsistent with its finding that the parcel had been delivered.

      Following our investigation, Australia Post advised us that it had misinterpreted the photographic evidence Ms E had provided. An Australia Post staff member visited the property and confirmed that the parcel could not have been delivered to Ms E’s address and was likely to have been incorrectly delivered. As a result, Australia Post agreed to compensate the sender for the full value of the sent item.

      Australian Taxation Office

      Administrative errors on tax assessment

      Mr F, a pensioner living in an aged care facility, contacted the Ombudsman as he was worried about a large debt he had incurred after lodging his annual income tax return. Debt collectors were pursuing him for payment of the debt but he had no means to pay.

      Mr F complained to our office as he believed there was a mistake with his return as, instead of a small refund, he received a bill. Mr F had written to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about his tax return but he had not received a reply.

      Our office asked the ATO to review the matter. The ATO, after considering Mr F’s age and circumstance, decided to place debt collection activity on hold while it completed the review.

      The ATO determined that keying errors had occurred on Mr F’s tax return. The ATO corrected the errors and issued an amended assessment which provided a refund plus credit interest. The ATO also wrote to Mr F to advise him of the outcome of the review. Mr F wrote to our office to acknowledge the helpful assistance provided by the ATO Complaints area in resolving his issue.

      Department of Human Services: Medicare

      Claims for two services on the same day

      Mr G complained that Medicare had rejected claims that he submitted for two separate services provided on the same day. This was not the first time Mr G had this problem, but Medicare had given very detailed instructions to him and the medical centre to make sure that it did not recur.

      When we investigated Mr G’s complaint, we identified that the correct information was provided by the relevant medical centre, but Medicare staff had not followed correct procedure. Our contact in Medicare identified 11 specific errors in staff not reading the entire text of information provided by the medical centre. This meant Medicare mistook two separate services which did occur on the same day as an attempt to make a duplicate claim for the same service.

      In response, Medicare apologised to Mr G and reminded its staff of the correct procedure for processing claims for multiple services on the same day. Medicare also gave Mr G a direct number of an officer to call if the problem happened again.

      Incorrect rebate information

      Mr H, who speaks little English, complained to our office in July 2012. Medicare had provided him with a handwritten quote stating that he would receive $727.70 for his Medicare rebate entitlement for medical treatment under the Enhanced Primary Care Scheme. Following treatment, Mr H lodged his claim with Medicare and received a rebate payment of $245.00. His complaint to Medicare was dismissed. It appears that Medicare did not consider providing an interpreter to ensure that Mr H was made fully aware of his entitlement in relation to a claim.

      Medicare acknowledged that it provided Mr H with incorrect rebate information and that it was evident that he decided to proceed with dental work on the basis of this information. We asked Medicare to consider assisting Mr H to lodge a claim for compensation under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme, with the assistance of an interpreter.

      In June 2013 Medicare advised that it had decided to offer compensation of $485.00 to Mr H. Mr H advised that he was happy with this outcome but not with the time it had taken.

      Systemic Remedies

      In some cases, the administrative error in one individual’s case has also occurred in a number of other cases. When this becomes apparent, we seek rectification of the problem as well as an outcome for the individual complainant. In many cases, complainants raise an issue with us even after they have received a satisfactory outcome, specifically so that a systemic problem can be corrected before it happens to anyone else.

      Department of Human Services: Centrelink

      Mailing of sensitive documents

      Ms J complained that her documents for an Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal arrived in an envelope which was ripped and torn. Centrelink had sent them via normal post in a normal envelope. We investigated and learned that there was an informal practice of using normal envelopes and regular post. Registered post was considered too expensive unless the tribunal had made a confidentiality order or there was another feature that made the material particularly sensitive.

      We did not consider it unreasonable for Centrelink to consider that registered post was too expensive. However, as a result of Ms J’s complaint, Centrelink has decided to institute use of ‘tough bags’ for transmission of tribunal documents. These should provide better protection for documents at minimal increased cost to Centrelink.

      Australia Post

      Disputed delivery of an eParcel

      An item purchased online by Ms K was dispatched via eParcel. Australia Post records showed it was delivered and that a signature had been obtained.

      Ms K told our office she did not receive the item: she was at work on the day of delivery and no-one else was at her home to sign for the item. Australia Post advised Ms K to ask the sender of the parcel to complain, which she did, and Australia Post provided a copy of the signature. The sender was satisfied that the item had been delivered, and chose not to take any further action. Australia Post said it would not investigate.

      Our investigation found that Australia Post had no record of an initial contact from Ms K. However, her emails to the sender indicated she had obtained advice from Australia Post about how to pursue the matter with the sender.

      Australia Post told our office that in cases of disputed signature and delivery, a certified copy of the signature should be obtained and an investigation should be logged. In addition, the delivery person should be contacted and attempts made to retrieve the parcel if it has been mis-delivered. In Ms K’s case, Australia Post did not follow these procedures and did not engage with the sender or Ms K.

      If Australia Post had asked Ms K to provide evidence of her signature at an earlier stage, it is likely that the complaint could have been resolved sooner and without our involvement.

      As a result of this complaint, Australia Post confirmed it had changed its procedures. Staff who receive a complaint about a disputed signature are now required to immediately record the complaint and investigate it with the relevant delivery office.

      Contractor issues resolved

      Ms L sent a ring valued at $1,000 to her sister, who did not receive it. When she complained, Australia Post claimed the customer had signed for the item but Ms L disputed this.

      In response to our investigation, Australia Post acknowledged that it should have requested a copy of her sister’s signature when Ms L disputed the contractor’s advice. Australia Post provided feedback to the Team Manager in relation to this. Australia Post’s Security and Investigation group found other irregularities with signatures obtained by the contractor.

      The contractor no longer works for Australia Post and has been placed on a list of people who will not be considered for future contracts. Australia Post agreed to pay Ms L discretionary compensation to the full value of the items.

      Department of Immigration and Citizenship

      Clothing for female detainees

      When we visited an immigration detention facility in Darwin, detainees raised a concern about the suitability of the clothing issued to female detainees. The facility had a policy of providing only unisex clothing that included two long or short sleeved t-shirts, one pair of shorts and one pair of tracksuit pants regardless of gender. The absence of optional skirts and dresses for wear by females was raised with us during a group discussion with the detainees who expressed concerns about this practice, in particular:

      • personal hygiene issues associated with wearing nylon tracksuit pants in tropical climates and needing to wash them on a daily basis. The women also advised that they were effectively confined to their rooms while their trackpants dried as it was culturally and religiously inappropriate for them to appear in public in shorts or any other attire that did not cover their legs
      • the cultural insensitivity displayed by issuing shorts to married women and the assumption that this would be acceptable clothing for any married woman regardless of culture
      • the religious insensitivity displayed by issuing shorts to adult Muslim women
      • the age insensitivity displayed by expecting older women to wear shorts or pants.

      When we raised these concerns with the Regional Management of the detention centre, we were advised that this practice would cease and that culturally appropriate female clothing suitable to tropical climates would be made available to the detainees.

      Department of Human Services: Medicare

      Long delay on Medicare payment

      Ms M had been waiting for three months to receive a Medicare payment. She complained that when she contacted Medicare about the delay, she was told she may need to wait a further three months.

      In response to our investigation, Medicare advised us that Ms M’s claim was for treatment over five years ago and that it could not pay her claim until it checked records held by another department to ensure that no prior claim had been made for the same treatment.

      As a result of our investigation, Medicare processed Ms M’s claim and advised it would review its claim processes, including more efficient access to records.

      Australian Taxation Office

      Records needed checking and updating

      Ms N contacted the ATO after discovering that her superannuation guarantee contributions had not been paid by her employer. Following an investigation, the ATO advised that the employer was under administration and suggested that Ms N contact the administrators to pursue the missing contributions.

      Ms N contacted the ATO and advised them that the employer was no longer under administration but that her superannuation guarantee contributions had still not been paid. After further unsuccessful contact with the ATO, Ms N contacted the Ombudsman.

      As a result of the Ombudsman investigation, the ATO searched relevant registration information and confirmed the administration had ended, as advised by Ms N. It updated its records and pursued recovery of the unpaid contributions. The ATO has undertaken to apologise to Ms N and to update its procedures to improve the process of checking and updating its records in these kinds of circumstances.

      Automated system decisions

      Our report, Automated-assistance in administrative decision-making better practice guide (2007), recognised that automated systems, which are increasingly being relied on by Australian Government agencies, play a significant and beneficial role in administrative decision making. However, it cautioned that care must be taken to ensure that their use supports administrative law values of lawfulness, fairness, rationality, openness and efficiency. Agencies also need to address access and equity concerns by continuing to provide alternatives to automated assistance, such as phone and face-to-face services.

      The case studies below highlight the importance of having a mechanism for addressing any inadequacies or faults with automated systems or instituting a temporary manual workaround to ensure there is not undue delay where a customer is likely to suffer adversely.

      Department of Human Services: Centrelink and Child Support

      Data integrity across programs

      The following two case studies demonstrate problems in the transfer of data between Centrelink and Child Support under the ‘alignment of care’ process. The ‘alignment of care’ initiative was intended to remove the need for parents and carers to separately advise parts of the Department of Human Services (DHS)—Child Support and Centrelink—when their children’s care arrangements change. It was also intended to ensure that the two parts of DHS use the same information: Child Support for the purposes of payment of the child support liability between parents; and Centrelink to ensure that the correct family tax benefit (FTB) is paid based on the percentage of time the child spends with each parent.

      Computer glitch with exchange of care data

      Ms O complained to this office on 13 April 2012 that her child support case was ended from the same date that it started due to what Centrelink called a ‘data integrity issue’. This information was automatically transferred to Centrelink in its usual exchange of care data, and consequently created an overpayment of her FTB. Centrelink asked Ms O to start paying back the overpayment of $2,600 while it investigated the problem.

      Although Centrelink was aware from 30 March 2012 that the overpayment was created by an error, it decided to delay correcting Ms O’s FTB payments until Child Support had resolved the ‘data integrity issue’ and restored her child support entitlement. This is despite Ms O contacting Centrelink on 16 April and 24 April 2012.

      Our investigation revealed that although Child Support had completed a submission for correcting the errors on 20 April 2012, and despite Ms O advising that she was in financial hardship, Child Support did not expedite the resolution of the issue nor contact Centrelink to discuss a workaround to reinstate her FTB. Child Support approved the correcting errors submission of 23 May 2012 and Ms O was paid her entitlements.

      Data processing error

      Mr P contacted this office on 31 October 2012 because Centrelink had taken his tax refund to pay for a debt it had raised for an apparent overpayment of FTB. Mr P had contacted Centrelink on 8 October 2012 to advise that it had incorrectly recorded the care percentage for his children which had resulted in the incorrect calculation of his FTB entitlements and a resulting debt. His telephone call to Centrelink was disconnected before the problem was sorted.

      Centrelink sent Mr P a form to complete as it had understood that Mr P had wanted to inform them of a change to his care percentage, rather than make a correction. Mr P contacted Centrelink again on 25 October 2012 and stated he should not have to complete the form as the shared care information recorded on his Centrelink record was incorrect.

      On 30 October 2012 Centrelink amended the shared care percentage effective from 31 January 2012. When this data was transmitted to Child Support, Child Support amended their records but erroneously deleted previous care information for two of Mr P’s children. Child Support’s incorrect information was then transferred back to the Family Assistance Office.

      As a result of our investigation, DHS confirmed that there was a known system error which had occurred on Mr P’s case. While working on a system resolution, DHS instituted a manual workaround to ensure that Mr P received the correct payment. They also sent around an internal message to ensure that all staff were made aware of the manual workaround that was available.

      Computer error leads to hardship

      Ms Q advised our office in July 2012 that Centrelink had raised a debt of about $33,000 against her in December 2011 and ceased paying her FTB and parenting payment (single). She had queried the raising of the debt and the cessation of her payments and said that Centrelink conceded those actions were undertaken in error.

      Ms Q said Centrelink described the problem as an ‘IT error’ and said it would be fixed and her payments reinstated. However, Ms Q advised our office that the problem had still not been fixed by July 2012. Ms Q said she made calls and sent emails to Centrelink every few weeks about the problem, without resolution.

      Ms Q told us that without her Centrelink payments she was not able to provide for her son, who subsequently moved to live with his father in March 2012. She said that she was also unable to afford to pay her rent and moved out of her home of 12 years. Ms Q told us that recovery of the debts was due to commence in November 2012 by garnishee from her wages.

      Centrelink confirmed that a data integrity problem compromised Ms Q’s record, resulting in an incorrect automatic Determination that her child was not an eligible FTB child, and caused the re-reconciliation of Ms Q’s FTB payments for the 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 income years and the creation of debts for those years. Centrelink confirmed that the data integrity problem had been identified in December 2011 and referred for technical assistance at that time, and Ms Q was verbally advised of the problem.

      In response to our investigation, Centrelink reduced to zero the three FTB debts for the 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 income years. However, Ms Q subsequently advised our office in August 2012 that she had a new FTB debt of $4,837.84 raised against her for the 2011–12 income year. Centrelink confirmed that the problem had recurred with the 2011–12 year. It again temporarily wrote off the debt before reducing it to zero in September 2012. Centrelink also made back-payments to Ms Q of FTB amounting to $302 and $883, and advised us that all matters arising out of the data integrity problem had been resolved. At the conclusion of our investigation, Centrelink apologised to Ms Q for its delay in correcting the data error.

      Active management of unresolved difficult cases

      As noted earlier, we believe one of the hallmarks of good administration and service delivery is not that no mistakes are made, but that agencies show active and timely management of complex cases.

      Department of Health and Ageing

      Sub-standard aged care services for Indigenous people

      Mr R had complained to the Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) on a number of occasions about sub-standard aged care services being delivered to residents in a remote Indigenous community. DOHA was the agency responsible for funding the services.

      Mr R contacted our office saying his complaints had not been adequately dealt with, and expressing concern that the elderly people in the community were not receiving the necessary services. As a result, staff at the Indigenous art centre had stepped in to fill the gap by helping to shower, clothe, manage hygiene and transport the elderly around the community.

      DOHA told us they had been aware of the service problems for some time and they had been actively working with the provider to improve the quality of its services for elderly people in the community. Following our enquiries, DOHA addressed the service problems by transferring the responsibility to another established aged care provider with the capacity to deliver the required services.

      Cross-agency issues

      Many Australian Government agencies work collaboratively, including sharing research and data, to deliver government programs and services under a whole-of-government approach. This can happen informally or—more usually—through inter-agency agreements such as memoranda of understanding. As shown in the complaints of Ms O and Ms Q above, there is data exchange between Centrelink and Child Support programs in DHS. This also occurs between Centrelink and other agencies, such as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), as outlined below.

      Centrelink and Department of Immigration and Citizenship

      Official birth date dispute

      Ms S contacted us in late 2011 after Centrelink suspended her Youth Allowance payments. Centrelink had received information from DIAC that showed Ms S’s date of birth was different from the date in Centrelink’s records. DIAC’s records said she was born in 1996, while Centrelink’s records said she was born in 1987. Ms S said that both dates were wrong and she was actually born in 1990.

      Ms S had been receiving Youth Allowance from Centrelink since she arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2004. Ms S did not have a passport or a birth certificate, but given that she had finished secondary education and was in her second year at university, it seemed unlikely that DIAC’s records were correct as this would mean she was now only 16 years old.

      When we started our investigation, Centrelink conceded that DIAC’s date of birth was probably not correct, but said it was obliged to adopt DIAC’s date of birth because it was the ‘official’ date for a person born overseas. Centrelink told us that it could not restore Ms S’s Youth Allowance unless and until DIAC changed Ms S’s ’official’ date of birth. DIAC had refused to change its records, because although it accepted its records were wrong, it was not satisfied that Ms S’s claim that she was born in 1990 was correct, because it did not consider her documents reliable.

      Ms S applied to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for a review of DIAC’s decision. We told Centrelink that we considered it was unfair for them to refuse to pay Ms S while this review was being conducted, and Centrelink restored Ms S’s Youth Allowance.

      The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner eventually decided that DIAC’s record of Ms S’s date of birth was wrong and changed Ms S’s ‘official’ date of birth. Centrelink amended its records accordingly. Centrelink has now revised its procedures so that people in Ms S’s situation would not be left without an income while they attempt to correct their official date of birth.

      Failure of data transfer

      Ms T complained to this office on 31 August 2012, as she had not received her FTB lump sum payment from Centrelink and was in severe financial hardship, including being behind on her rent.

      Lump sum FTB is paid at the end of the financial year, on the basis of information from a tax assessment completed by the ATO and automatically transferred to Centrelink. Ms T was told conflicting information from the ATO and Centrelink about where the process was up to. The ATO had told Ms T that the information had been transferred twice to Centrelink on 10 August and 23 August 2012, but on 4 September Centrelink advised her that it still had not received the data.

      It was not possible to clearly identify which agency was primarily responsible for the failure of the data transfer, but we believe Centrelink should have taken more responsibility to attempt to find a solution that would enable Ms T to be paid her FTB entitlement more quickly.

      Parenting payment mistakenly stopped

      Ms U’s parenting payment stopped as the Centrelink system suddenly considered that she was no longer qualified. Centrelink told her that the matter was a ‘glitch in the system’ and that she should be qualified for parenting payment, but it could not pay her until the glitch was fixed. After complaining to our office and already going without payments (and having to contact charitable organisations to obtain food for herself and her young daughter) for six days, Centrelink was able to re-grant her payment.

      An investigation by our office showed that it was not a ‘glitch in the system’ preventing payment, but a situation where her payment was mistakenly automatically cancelled. The time taken to provide Ms U with a payment was due to Centrelink needing to obtain policy advice from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to Ms U’s ongoing qualification.

      Centrelink did provide social worker support and some emergency financial assistance to Ms U while it investigated why her parenting payment had stopped. However, it accepted that it did not take reasonable steps to initiate a solution to this problem in a more timely manner and advised that it regretted the inconvenience and financial hardship caused to Ms U.

      Unreasonable delay

      Unreasonable delay is an example of shortcomings in decision making that leads to adverse outcomes, as illustrated in the complaints below.

      Department of Immigration and Citizenship

      Inaction delays refund

      Mr V applied for a citizenship certificate and paid the required fee of $60. He was advised by DIAC that he was entitled to a refund of the $60 fee due to his name being displayed incorrectly on the certificate produced. However, after many months the fee had not been refunded to him. DIAC had advised Mr V that the delay was due to a technical problem.

      After making the complaint to us, Mr V’s money was refunded. However, we decided to investigate to determine the cause of the delay, which was more than six months. DIAC responded by saying that although there were some obstacles to be overcome, the fundamental cause of the delay was inaction rather than any technical problem. DIAC provided Mr V with a formal written apology and counselled its staff in relation to escalating such matters in future.

      Australian Taxation Office

      Income tax return delay

      Mr W lodged his income tax return through a tax agent and was expecting a large return. Mr W advised that he was homeless and was waiting on the refund to enable him to resolve this issue.

      His income tax return was delayed, and efforts to expedite the processing of the return under hardship arrangements were unsuccessful. Mr W then complained to the Ombudsman.

      Following our contact, ATO Complaints ensured that Mr W’s claim was finalised and that payment was processed manually and credited to his tax agent’s trust account.

      Complex decision making

      Transparency in decision making is essential to ensure customers can access any review rights they may have. Agencies also need to analyse wrong decisions to find out whether there are any systemic problems that need to be addressed, or policy or legislative changes to be considered, as demonstrated in these case studies.

      Department of Human Services: Centrelink and Child Support

      Family Tax Benefit confusion

      Ms X complained to us that her FTB had been reduced, and she did not understand why. The letters she received from Centrelink advised her of the new reduced rate of FTB and contained the statements that her rate ‘includes affecting maintenance’ and ’the amount of child support you receive may reduce your payments’. Ms X continued to receive the same amount of child support as before, which she collected privately from her former partner.

      Our investigation found that Centrelink had retrospectively reduced Ms X’s FTB because Child Support had amended and increased her child support entitlement following an investigation into her former partner’s income. Ms X had not received Child Support’s letters advising her of her increased entitlement to child support and was now being paid FTB on the basis that she had or would collect the increased amount of child support. This was incorrect.

      As a result of our investigation, Centrelink reassessed Ms X’s FTB and cancelled the debt that it raised on the assumption that she had already collected the child support from her former partner. Ms X has now asked Child Support to take over collecting from her former partner on her behalf.

      Importance of good communication

      Good service delivery to customers relies on clear communication between the agency and the consumer. Agency decisions will only be correct if they are based on complete and accurate information from the customer. In order to know what they must tell the agency, the customer needs to be supported by accurate, timely advice from the agency. This advice can be given orally, whether on the telephone, or in person, or through printed information provided on websites, in brochures and through individual correspondence.

      Department of Human Services: Centrelink

      Missing information in customer letters

      Ms Y complained to this office on 16 November 2012 that Centrelink had been assessing her rate of disability support pension (DSP) based on out-of-date information about her partner’s periodic compensation payments. Those payments had ceased on 27 March 2009 but continued to be recorded on Ms Y’s Centrelink record as her partner’s ‘other income’, even after Centrelink removed the information from the periodic compensation screen.

      Ms Y applied for compensation under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme, and Centrelink agreed to compensate her for 75% of her loss on the basis that she had not queried the amount included under ‘other income’ in her original grant of DSP letter. We were concerned that subsequent letters to the grant letter did not include information about all types of income used in the assessment of her DSP entitlement.

      Customer’s debt confusion

      Ms Z complained to us that her FTB had not been paid as she had not completed her tax returns. She was in financial difficulty and was about to be made homeless. She had a substantial debt which she did not understand which she was paying off and did not know whether she had asked Centrelink to review the debt. When she contacted Centrelink she was told she would need to lodge her tax returns, which she did, but she did not receive her FTB payment when expected. When she did receive her FTB, most of it was taken to pay off the debt.

      As part of our investigation, we asked Centrelink to contact Ms Z and explain the debt verbally and in writing. Centrelink sent Ms Z a detailed letter explaining what the debts were for and how they arose, and instigated a review. Ms Z said that she now understood the debts and was in a better position to understand what she was appealing.

      Australian Taxation Office

      Audit issues

      Mr AA, a tax agent, lodged an income tax return for his client. After two months, the ATO wrote to the client to advise the return was subject to audit checks. The ATO asked him to provide receipts to substantiate some of the deductions claimed.

      The client provided the requested information within the agreed timeframes. After not hearing further from the ATO four months later, Mr AA wrote to the ATO and asked for an update on the progress of the audit, but did not receive a reply. One month later, Mr AA wrote again and the ATO responded with a letter advising the outcome of the audit. Some deductions were disallowed and the client was issued with a notice of assessment, which included penalties.

      Mr AA complained to the ATO about the delays and stated that some adjustments to his deductions were made without seeking further information. Mr AA was not satisfied with the response and complained to the Ombudsman.

      Following our contact, the ATO provided a full explanation of the adjustments and acknowledged the errors and delays. The ATO apologised to Mr AA and his client and offered support to correct the errors through the objection process.

      Consistency of decision making

      Although policies should not be applied inflexibly, it is important that they guide the decision maker to ensure consistency of decision making. Customers should also be able to rely on a department applying its procedures consistently. One of the hallmarks of good customer service is when customers feel that they are treated with respect, and their views are listened to, sought out and responded to.

      Department of Immigration and Citizenship

      Policy not followed

      Mr BB lodged a Subclass 119 Visa application on 29 June 2012, the second last day before this subclass of visa was discontinued. Due to a large volume of applications received at that time, DIAC did not process the application until 6 July 2012. His credit card payment for the visa fee was declined and, as a result, his application was treated as not valid. As the Subclass 119 Visa no longer existed, the effect of that decision was that Mr BB could not reapply for that visa.

      During our investigation, we discovered that DIAC had not followed its policy which suggested that an applicant should be contacted at least twice over a period of two days to enable rectification of an application that would otherwise be invalid. On reconsideration, DIAC agreed to contact Mr BB and give him the opportunity to rectify the application.

      Identity confusion

      Mr CC became an Australian citizen in 1972. He recently applied for an Australian passport and was advised that he first needed to apply for evidence of Australian citizenship. However Mr CC, as is common for people of his cultural background, has a number of middle names which are not recorded in the same way on each of his identity documents.

      DIAC returned Mr CC’s application for evidence of citizenship to him with the advice that he would need to provide all identity documents in his current legal name. Mr CC provided DIAC with a declaration indicating that he is known by different names. However, DIAC was still not satisfied about Mr CC’s identity. Mr CC was concerned, as he was due to travel outside Australia.

      Our office contacted DIAC and confirmed that it was actively working on Mr CC’s case. DIAC requested additional information from Mr CC which was sufficient to satisfy the delegate that he was entitled to a citizenship certificate, and worked with him and other agencies to ensure he was able to obtain a passport. Cases such as this, involving clients from different cultural backgrounds with different naming conventions, have provided useful training material for DIAC officers.

      Inconsistent agency outcomes

      The following two complaints about overseas students illustrate different responses to complaints between educational providers.

      Overseas students

      Positive service delivery and speedy rectification

      An overseas student, Mr DD, contacted this office complaining that his Vocational Education and Training provider had refused his application to transfer to another education provider and was taking no action on his refund request.

      We investigated and found that Mr DD had applied to transfer to a course that was not starting for more than two months, which was too big a gap to satisfy the conditions of his Student Visa. As a result, the provider had asked him to obtain another confirmation of enrolment for a course starting sooner, which he had just done.

      When we contacted the provider, they had already acted on the new enrolment document, granting the transfer and approving the refund. The speed with which Mr DD’s applications were processed was an example of positive service delivery by a private education provider.

      Agency delays refund

      We investigated a complaint from an overseas student, Mr EE, who had been granted a conditional enrolment into Year 10 high school studies but had then failed to meet the required English language proficiency entry level after completing an English course with the same provider. He applied to withdraw and receive a refund for the high school course which he could not commence. However, the provider refused to pay him a refund, saying he had to study its English course instead.

      Mr EE’s brother complained to our office and we investigated the matter. We found the provider appeared to have breached several standards of the National Code of Practice for Education Providers, including accepting an enrolment agreement signed by an under-18-year-old instead of his parents and failing to release Mr EE to study at any English college he chose after he failed to meet the English entry requirement for the high school course.

      We recommended the provider release Mr EE to study with another provider and pay Mr EE a refund as the enrolment agreement was invalid. The provider then took two months to pay the refund, despite our advice that they were obliged by law to do so within four weeks. We told the provider that if similar issues arise in the future, we may make a public disclosure to the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

      Different complaints’ processes

      The Ombudsman promotes agencies developing their own complaint service which accepts complaints as core business providing valuable material to inform improvement to service delivery. Our emphasis is on referring complaints back to the agency to give it the opportunity to resolve the complaint first. The following complaints to the Ombudsman highlight agency differences in handling complaints.

      Department of Immigration and Citizenship

      Visa confusion

      Ms FF, partner of Mr GG, an Australian citizen, was granted a Provisional Partner Visa in January 2010. Ms FF’s two dependent children were included in the visa. It was a condition of the children’s visas that they enter Australia by 25 September 2010. However, for personal reasons Mr GG and Ms FF chose not to bring the children to Australia by this date. In April 2012, Ms FF applied for a Permanent Partner Visa, with the children as secondary applicants. In the process of assessing the application, DIAC found that the children had not entered Australia at all.

      DIAC gave advice on options, including that the children could be removed from the current Permanent Visa application so that Ms FF’s application could go ahead and then new visa arrangements could be made for the children if and when it was decided they were going to migrate to Australia.

      Ms FF reluctantly withdrew the children from the Permanent Visa application and her visa was granted immediately.

      Mr GG, concerned about whether the advice about removing the children from the application was correct, attempted to clarify the matter with DIAC. After the exchange of some correspondence and telephone contact, he was advised that DIAC had provided correct advice and would not be responding to the issue again.

      We investigated and found that DIAC had not advised Ms FF of all the options available, and the full impacts of all these options on the family, and that Ms FF did not understand that it may not have been necessary to remove the children from the application. DIAC accepted that its incomplete advice to Mr GG and Ms FF about the options available in respect of the children’s visa led to less than optimal outcomes.

      DIAC reviewed how the problem with the advice arose and agreed to apologise to the family.

      Lost complaint about settlement

      When Ms HH arrived in Australia under the humanitarian program, she and her family were settled in Town X with the assistance of a DIAC-funded humanitarian settlement service. Ms HH contacted our office and complained that she felt unsafe in Town X and wanted to move to Town Y, but that neither DIAC nor the settlement service were helping her.

      When our office contacted DIAC, they confirmed they had no record of Ms HH lodging a complaint with them. DIAC also explained that the settlement service was only funded to arrange accommodation for each client once—but that there was a process to provide additional funding in certain circumstances.

      DIAC contacted the settlement service about the matter and between them they were able to establish the basis of Ms HH’s concerns. DIAC advised the settlement service to submit to them a request for duplication of services, along with supporting documentation. DIAC advised that they would then make a decision about whether or not to support duplication of services.

      DIAC also advised that the settlement service had contacted a community organisation in Town Y to assist with finding the relevant real estate agent to locate appropriate accommodation.

      Department of Human Services: Medicare

      Failure to recognise a review request

      Mrs JJ complained about a debt Medicare raised for rebates for treatment her husband received under his mental health treatment plan without a valid referral. Mr and Mrs JJ were unaware of the problem with the referral and Medicare incorrectly paid claims for Mr JJ’s services, but it was now seeking to recover $1,800 from Mrs JJ (as the claimant).

      As part of the correspondence between Mrs JJ and Medicare, a letter she sent in June 2012 was treated as a freedom of information (FOI) request. While there was information in the letter that would suggest Mrs JJ may have been making an FOI request, in the circumstances it could also have been treated as a review request. By treating it only as an FOI request, Medicare inadvertently delayed the review process. As a result of our investigation, Medicare agreed to conduct a review of the debt and decided not to recover it from Mrs JJ.

      Australia Post

      Redirection failure

      Ms KK requested a 10-month redirection of her mail but the redirection failed. She contacted our office six months after the redirection was supposed to start, having still received no redirected mail. Ms KK had complained to Australia Post a number of times, and each time Australia Post advised that the redirection was working.

      Following our investigation, Australia Post identified deficiencies in the handling of Ms KK’s complaint, established the cause of the ongoing failure, and refunded the total redirection fee to Ms KK.

      Overseas students

      Internal appeal the first step

      An overseas student, Mr LL, contacted our office to complain that his education provider intended to report him for poor attendance. He also alleged the provider’s education services were of poor quality.

      We transferred the quality aspects of his complaint to the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority for consideration. We contacted the provider regarding the attendance matter and confirmed the student had not yet accessed the provider’s internal complaints and appeals process, with the deadline due to end the next day.

      The provider agreed to give Mr LL a one-week extension to lodge an internal appeal. This represents good service delivery and encourages students to access their provider’s internal complaints and appeals processes to try to resolve issues directly with their provider in the first instance. They can then contact our office if they are unsuccessful.

      Department of Human Services: warm transfers for vulnerable customers

      Where callers have not pursued their complaint with an agency’s internal complaint service, we generally refer them back to the agency to do so. Over the past year, we have developed a practice of ‘warm transfers’ where vulnerable callers are transferred directly to the Department of Human Services (DHS). DHS will make contact with the caller within three days or less if the matter is urgent. With their permission, callers are transferred under this arrangement if they are homeless, without payments or suffering financial hardship due to a decision of DHS.

      Under this arrangement, we do not investigate the complaint, but callers are invited to contact the Ombudsman if their complaint is not resolved through this process. We followed up a number of people who had been transferred in this way to check that the process was working. Most people had received contact from DHS within the timeframe we had specified and reported that their complaint had been resolved. Some callers reported that the process had led to a speedy resolution of a problem they had tried to sort out with Centrelink but had been unable to for a variety of reasons. These included difficulty with access through phone delays and an inability to access face-to-face services due to isolation, disability and other issues. The complaints below show positive outcomes experienced by callers transferred through this process.

      Payment delay resolved

      Ms MM had become the sole carer of her children for the past two months and found herself in the position of having no money to buy food or pay rent. Centrelink was still paying family tax benefit (FTB) to the children’s father who no longer had care of the children. Ms MM had applied for FTB but had been told by Centrelink she wouldn’t get any payments and had to return the children to live with their step-mother, with whom they had lived while their father was in prison. Ms MM’s mother said she had been supporting her daughter but had since run out of money herself.

      Ms MM provided Centrelink with documents from both maternal and paternal grandmothers, school enrolment forms and other material which showed that Ms MM had care of the children. Ms MM and her mother said they had many contacts with Centrelink, but had been told conflicting stories and were at the end of their tether. Ms MM was also unhappy that the children’s father has been paid the Schoolkids Bonus when he did not have care of the children and had not made any contribution to their school costs.

      We transferred the complaint directly to Centrelink. Ms MM contacted us two weeks later to thank us for referring the complaint, and to advise us that Centrelink had contacted her within two hours of the complaint being referred and had sorted out her complaint very quickly.

      Money returned to homeless customer

      Mr NN, who has a mental illness, lodged tax returns for 14 years through a tax agent and expected a significant refund. At Centrelink’s request, the ATO withheld $8,700 from his refund to recover a Centrelink debt. When Mr NN called our office he was homeless, staying in a backpackers’ hostel and had no money for food. He had been hoping to use the refund to get himself established somewhere and to pay off traffic fines and regain his driver’s licence. He told us that he was trying to get a Newstart Allowance but had to walk 10 kilometres in 35-degree heat to get to a Centrelink office.

      We asked Centrelink to contact Mr NN within 24 hours. Centrelink immediately granted Mr NN an emergency payment of $100 to cover food and taxis. Two days later, Centrelink advised us that they had granted Mr NN the Newstart Allowance (backdated for two weeks) and provided a payment of $588.80 in arrears. Centrelink advised that Mr NN may also be entitled to rental assistance arrears.

      Centrelink advised that they returned $4,000 of the tax return to Mr NN, and he advised us that the money was in his bank account that same morning. Mr NN said he was happy with the outcome and thanked our office.