Chapter 6
Looking at the agencies
Postal industry menu: Introduction | PIO complaints overview | Australia Post complaints overview
introduction
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has carried out the role of Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO) since 6 October 2006.
The PIO was established to offer an industry ombudsman function for the postal and courier industry. Australia Post is automatically subject to the PIO's jurisdiction. Other postal industry participants can register with the PIO, enabling the PIO to investigate complaints made about them.
At 30 June 2009 the following registered private postal operators (PPOs) were subject to the jurisdiction of the PIO:
- Cheque–Mates Pty Ltd
- D & D Mailing Services
- Dependable Couriers & Taxi Trucks Sydney Pty Ltd
- Federal Express (Australia) Pty Ltd
- The Mailing House
- Mailroom Express Pty Ltd
- Universal Express Australia Pty Ltd
- Australian Air Express Pty Ltd.
TopPIO complaints overview
The PIO received 2,026 approaches and complaints in 2008–09, a 7% increase on 2007–08. Table 6.3 shows the number of approaches received, and complaint investigations commenced and completed, over the course of the year.
The PIO can only investigate activities relating to the provision of a postal or similar service. Complaints about other aspects of a postal provider's operations (such as employment matters or environmental issues) cannot be considered.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman still has jurisdiction over those administrative actions of Australia Post that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the PIO.
A complaint about Australia Post may be transferred from the Commonwealth to PIO jurisdiction, or vice versa. This can occur because the investigation would be better handled in the other jurisdiction, or in order to use the more extensive formal powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in investigating a complaint. Further detailed PIO reporting, such as the number of times complaints were transferred from the PIO jurisdiction to the Commonwealth jurisdiction, is provided in Appendix 4.
Activities
In May 2009 we contacted all registered PPOs, providing them with a copy of the Ombudsman's Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling and a questionnaire designed to help them better understand how the role of the PIO interacts with the daily operations of PPOs.
The aim of this exercise, apart from wider distribution of the Better Practice Guide, was to analyse why we receive relatively few complaints about PPOs. We will consider this issue further when the questionnaires are returned, with a view to deciding whether we need to take other steps to raise our profile with customers of PPOs.
We have also continued to liaise with other postal industry stakeholders, particularly the Post Office Agents Association.
TABLE 6.3 Approaches and complaints received, and investigations, by the PIO, 2008–09
|
Australia Post |
Private postal operators |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|
Approaches and complaints received |
2,013 |
13 |
2,026 |
Investigations commenced |
704 |
4 |
708 |
Investigations completed |
645 |
3 |
648 |
Australia Post complaints overview
In 2008–09, we received 2,219 approaches and complaints about Australia Post. Figure 6.7 shows the number of approaches and complaints received about Australia Post over the last five years, and the division between Commonwealth Ombudsman and PIO jurisdictions in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Some of the major investigations and themes we have worked on this year are discussed in the rest of this section.
FIGURE 6.7 Australia Post approach and complaint trends, 2004–05 to 2008–09
Use of notification cards
During 2007–08 we commenced an own motion investigation into the way Australia Post uses cards to notify addressees that mail is awaiting collection. The investigation report was published in December 2008.
The report, Australia Post: Use of notification cards (Report No. 14/2008), concluded that a number of issues affected the reliability of the carding process. Human error was one, but we also noted ambiguity in the instructions provided to employees and contractors around such issues as when delivery had to be attempted, and what forms of identification were acceptable for release of items over the counter.
In addition, we concluded that instances of lost items could be reduced through a clearer link between the card left and the item it related to (for example, a peel–off barcode that could be removed from the card and fixed to the item being returned for collection). More stringent recording procedures at offices receiving items to be held for collection would also reduce the number of lost items.
In response to the report, Australia Post undertook to review the wording on the various cards to provide greater clarity to addressees, to improve training, and to review existing strategies to reinforce correct procedures. Australia Post also agreed to consider improving processes for matching a parcel to the addressee, subject to issues of practicality.
Polls to gauge community support for changes to mail delivery services
During the year we completed an investigation into the methodology adopted by Australia Post for carrying out polls to ascertain whether there is community support for changing mail delivery services—for example, providing a delivery service where one was not previously available. We released the report, Australia Post: Community polling practices: gauging community support for changes to postal delivery services (Report No. 1/2009), in March 2009.
We concluded that it was reasonable for Australia Post to want to establish whether the community actively supported a change, before delivery arrangements were altered. However, the investigation identified concerns with Australia Post's practice of treating a non–response to its poll—which is circulated as a written form which has to be returned to Australia Post—as effectively a 'no' vote.
The report recommended that Australia Post review its methodology with a view to addressing these concerns. Australia Post agreed to do so.
Complaint about service delivery and complaint handling
In March 2009 the Ombudsman issued a report of an investigation carried out into the way a complaint about a registered post item had been handled (Australia Post: Complaint about service delivery and complaint handling regarding a registered post article (Report No. 5/2009)). The sender had paid for an acknowledgment of delivery card to be returned to them, but did not receive one. The item was said to have contained valuable jewellery.
Our report identified that the delivery person had failed to obtain a signature as required, although the item had in fact been delivered. The concerning aspect of the case was the failure of Australia Post's customer contact centre to follow up properly on the complaint, giving the complainant the impression that the item had not been delivered.
Australia Post's response advised that a number of the issues identified in the Ombudsman's report were being addressed through its development of national complaint–handling guidelines. The investigation of this complaint highlights the importance of that work and we will continue to monitor progress of the development and implementation of those guidelines.
Mail redirection service
We noted in our last annual report that we receive a significant number of complaints every year about mail redirection. These complaints are notable for the levels of frustration and even distress experienced by people who do not know where their mail is. The Ombudsman decided to investigate this issue on his own initiative, and released the report Australia Post: Administration of the mail redirection service (Report No. 7/2009) in June 2009.
The report concluded that the redirection service relies heavily on manual intervention, and there is significant scope for human error to affect the process. When this occurs, it is important that complaints are handled quickly and efficiently so that problems are corrected. The report made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the redirection service. In response, Australia Post committed to reviewing certain aspects of the redirection service with a view to improving accuracy and dealing with complaints more effectively.
Delays in processing inbound international mail
In our last annual report we discussed our investigation into the involvement of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in delays to inbound international mail in Australia.
Following a successful Christmas season in 2008 when backlogs remained at manageable levels and of short duration, we finalised our investigation into the issue. We concluded that steps taken by AQIS should reduce the likelihood of severe delays recurring. These steps included directing increased resources at screening inbound international mail, together with proposed refinements to the way in which mail at risk of breaching quarantine regulations is identified.
Our Brisbane office, which has responsibility for liaison with AQIS, will continue to monitor the issue on a six–monthly basis.
Express Post
In the mid–1990s the Ombudsman's office had an extended interaction with Australia Post on the subject of its Express Post service. In our annual reports for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 we discussed some of the issues around the service, particularly the nature of the Express Post guarantee, compensation, and the exclusions printed on the envelope.
We decided to follow up with Australia Post on some of these issues, given that we continue to receive some complaints about Express Post and the nature of the guarantee provided to customers.
Following analysis of the complaints we received, together with information from Australia Post about the volume of items carried by the service, we concluded that the issue did not warrant further investigation. While it is important that customers understand that the 'guarantee' offered by Express Post is limited, the incidence of service failure is low and the terms of the guarantee are printed on Express Post envelopes.
Compensation levels
A review of old files held by the Ombudsman's office showed that the maximum compensation usually payable for a letter or parcel sent by ordinary mail that is lost or damaged in the post has remained at its current level of $50 for many years.
The Ombudsman decided to investigate the reasons for this. We are in correspondence with Australia Post on the issue and aim to conclude the investigation in 2009–10.
'Safe drop' of bulky items
In September 2008 Australia Post instituted its 'Safe Drop' program nationwide. This allows bulky items that do not fit in an addressee's letterbox to be left in a safe place, instead of being taken back to the post office and carded for collection as would previously have been the practice. Items can only be left if they are out of view of the street, and safe from weather and pets. Items requiring a signature on delivery cannot be left.
This was a significant change in delivery practices, and we have been monitoring the number of complaints we receive that appear to relate to the Safe Drop program, whether from people who object in principle, or from customers who complain because delivery people are not following the rules and are leaving items in exposed locations.
We intend to provide feedback to Australia Post on our experience of the operation of the Safe Drop system once it has been in place for a year. If any issues of concern arise we will ensure that Australia Post is aware of them and request its comment.
Customer contact centres
In our last annual report we discussed some of the issues that we see arising out of the way in which Australia Post handles customer complaints.
These issues have also been evident this year. The investigation report on complaint handling regarding a registered post article, referred to earlier, is just one example of a complaint that became problematic because of the way in which it was handled.
In saying this, we acknowledge the work of the many Australia Post customer service officers who do their jobs in an effective and committed fashion. The recurring themes that we have identified tend to involve limitations in Australia Post's complaint management systems, and issues around training and policy guidance, rather than misconduct by individual officers.
The recent publication of our Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling highlights our focus on the benefits of effective complaint–handling processes for organisations, as well as the importance of such systems for customers.
We do not intend to investigate Australia Post's customer contact centres at this stage, because we have been aware for some time that Australia Post is in the process of implementing national complaint–handling guidelines. These were referred to in Australia Post's response to our report into its handling of a complaint about a delivery officer in 2007. By the time our next annual report is published, we expect that that review will have been completed, and that we will have had an opportunity to assess whether implementation of the national complaint–handling guidelines has improved complaint–handling processes.
Australia Post will also be rationalising its existing structure of six customer contact centres into two centres, in Melbourne and Brisbane. This rationalisation, and the associated changes to systems and internal procedures, may have a significant effect on Australia Post's complaint handling. Again, we will consider the outcome of that process before conducting an investigation into Australia Post's complaint handling.
In establishing its new structures and procedures, Australia Post will be able to draw on the recommendations of our last two investigation reports that dealt with Australia Post complaint-handling issues. We also trust that Australia Post will have regard to the Ombudsman's Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling.
The case studies Bear essentials, Different stories and Triple dipping illustrate the diverse nature of the complaints we handled about Australia Post during the year.
Bear essentials
A consignment of teddy bears was shipped from Europe to a retailer in Australia. However, after the addressee paid the customs duty they were not delivered. This caused distress not only for the addressee, but for the retailer's customers who had ordered them for Christmas.
Enquiries revealed that the bears had been returned to sender without any attempt having been made to deliver them. Our investigation found that no explanation could be provided as to why they were not delivered, or why they had been sent back.
We arranged with Australia Post that when they got back to Europe, the bears would be repatriated at Australia Post's expense. We are assured that all the bears are now happy and doing well.
Different stories
Mr K believed that he should not receive unaddressed mail delivered by Australia Post, as a sign in the letterbox area of his apartment block requested no unaddressed mail be placed in any of the letterboxes.
On contacting Australia Post Mr K was advised that if he did not want unaddressed mail, he needed to fix a sign to his individual letterbox. This is because each mail recipient has the right to choose whether to receive unaddressed mail or not. However, when Mr K complained to one of the senders of an unaddressed mail item, he was told that Australia Post had agreed it should not deliver to any of the letterboxes at his apartment block.
Mr K was dissatisfied with what appeared to be conflicting information given by Australia Post. We were able to contact Australia Post and confirm that the information given to Mr K directly was correct—that it was up to individual box owners to choose whether to opt out of unaddressed mail.
Although Mr K would have preferred a different outcome, and not to have to fix a sign to his individual letterbox, he was appreciative of our clarification of the position.
Triple dipping
Ms L's local Member of Parliament approached us about a problem Ms L had experienced when using Billpay at an Australia Post outlet. Owing to a problem with the clearing bank that provided the service, her account had been debited three times, leaving her out of pocket.
We contacted Australia Post to ask for details of what had happened and what Australia Post had done as a result. Australia Post was able to assure us that it had taken prompt and appropriate action when it became aware of the problem. Australia Post had identified the issue as a learning opportunity and was working together with the bank to avoid any recurrence.
Although the actual problem had not been of Australia Post's making, Australia Post showed a willingness to tackle the issue and to implement preventive measures. We were able to advise Ms L's Member of Parliament accordingly.
Previous
page | Next page—Chapter 6–Looking at the agencies–Other agencies