Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report 2005-2006
 Annual report home | Contents | Userguide | Download | Contact | Glossary
 Transmittal | Foreword | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Features | Appendixes | References
     

Contentsright arrowChapter 8 How the Ombudsman helped peopleright arrowDetoxifying the relationship

Click to print this pageIncrease text sizeDecrease text size
       

In this chapter

 Introduction
 Pinpointing the issue in dispute
 Dealing with urgent and pressing issues
 Detoxifying the relationship
 Placing an item on the legislative or policy agenda
 Surmounting barriers

References

List of tables
and figures
Glossary
Compliance index
Contacts

CHAPTER 8 How the Ombudsman helped people

Detoxifying the relationship

Many people have an ongoing, even lifetime, relationship with a particular agency. For example, a person will be a taxpayer throughout their life, may receive a Centrelink benefit for an extended period, or be subject to a Child Support Order for many years. Sometimes a particular incident can taint a person's relationship with an agency and colour their subsequent interaction. A person may then distrust the agency and assume that standard administrative requirements are ill-intentioned.

The Ombudsman's office can sometimes detoxify the relationship, by isolating the issue that led to the difficulty and ensuring better understanding and communication in the future. This is demonstrated in the Repeated investigations case study, where interaction between the person and the agency had deteriorated to the point that the person was suspicious of the agency's unintentional administrative error.

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.