|
||||||||
|
CHAPTER
8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE STUDY |
Repeated investigations |
Centrelink had repeatedly investigated Ms F's circumstances to determine whether she was a member of a couple. In her complaint to our office, Ms F alleged that Centrelink officers had deliberately falsified her record and threatened and intimidated her. The relationship between Ms F and the agency had deteriorated to the point where she viewed even the most helpful actions by Centrelink officers, such as suggesting that she claim a more beneficial payment, as ill-intentioned. We investigated the complaint and explained the policy behind some of Centrelink's actions. We were able to ensure that Ms F's electronic record was corrected and that she received the full payment to which she was entitled. Centrelink provided several written apologies to Ms F. Other aspects of the complaint are still being investigated. |
|
In a similar position are cases in which a person has special needs of which an agency is unaware or for which it has not made special provision. If the agency puts in place particular rules for contacting the client, it can improve the relationship and reduce the chance of later difficulty, as in the Special contact needs case study.
CASE STUDY |
Special contact needs |
Ms G complained to our office about a series of instances where she considered that she had not been provided with adequate advice by an agency. During our investigation, we established that Ms G suffered from agoraphobia and that she was not comfortable seeking assistance from males. In response to our enquiries, the agency provided Ms G with the contact details of an officer who understood her situation and with whom she would be comfortable. That officer could obtain information from other officers on Ms G's behalf and organise a home interview if required. This arrangement appears to have improved Ms G's confidence in the agency and reduced the likelihood of further complaints. |
|