CHAPTER 5Challenges in complaint handling

Responding to complaint—handling challenges

Responding to complaint—handling challenges menu: Work practice changes | Public Contact Team | Complaint management system | Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants | Relations with government agencies | New policy on administrative deficiency

There has been considerable change in the office in recent years. A number of new functions have been acquired, such as the Immigration Ombudsman role, Law Enforcement Ombudsman role, and the Postal Industry Ombudsman role. Other major changes, described below, have also been made to the way that complaints are managed.

Work practice changes

Work practices were changed in 2005–06 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of complaint handling. These changes included:

• redeveloping the Work Practice Manual
• introducing a Work Practice Steering Committee
• designing and implementing a new complaint management system
• creating a Public Contact Team (PCT)
• adopting a five-tier category structure for categorising and escalating complaints.

A post-implementation review commenced in 2007 to assess whether these changes met their intended objectives. An external consultant is conducting the review and is expected to provide practical solutions to any identified gaps. The review will be completed in early 2007–08.

Top

Public Contact Team

The introduction of the PCT in early 2006 enabled complaint handling to be streamlined in the office. During 2006–07 the PCT managed some 50,000 telephone calls, and took on responsibility for the initial assessment of and (in appropriate cases) response to written complaints. Approximately 71% of all initial approaches to the office were finalised by the PCT. This freed investigation officers to focus on more complex and demanding cases.

The PCT provides an important service in being the first point of contact to the office for members of the public. We received over 33,000 approaches during the year, with over 15,000 of these being enquiries, requests for information, and complaints outside our jurisdiction. For those matters within our jurisdiction, we dealt with nearly 14,000 without investigation.

Many people who approach the office do so because they do not know how to resolve their problem. Our surveys of public awareness have indicated that there is a reasonably high level of awareness of ‘the Ombudsman’ as an avenue to resolve problems about government agencies, and ‘the Ombudsman’ is the most commonly preferred choice for dealing with complaints about Australian Government departments and agencies. However, many people have difficulty in understanding the roles of different Ombudsmen. In addition, organisations such as Telstra frequently refer people to the Ombudsman when they ask for someone to assist them. This emphasises the importance of having good procedures in place to advise people of the most appropriate body to deal with their specific concerns.

In some cases, people’s problems cover a range of issues and different levels of government. For example, a sole parent may contact us when they find themselves in difficulty, which could involve housing issues (for example, public housing provided by a state agency, with rent deduction from Centrelink), child support issues (possibly involving the Child Support Agency and Family Court), income support issues (possibly involving Centrelink, DEWR and PAGES) and child welfare issues (involving state departments). In some cases, the situation can be so dire that the person needs some form of emergency assistance.

In these circumstances, PCT staff work hard to provide people with advice about the best avenues to pursue their problems. For example, they will advise them which state organisations, including state Ombudsmen, to contact and how. They will give them advice about how to raise their concerns with agencies such as Centrelink and DEWR, or pass these matters to our investigation staff to consider further. If the person seems to be in need of emergency assistance, PCT staff will give them contact information for relevant organisations such as the Salvation Army.

Where the PCT staff are unsure, they are able to draw on the resources of the office, including our specialist teams, to provide the best advice to the person.

Dealing with callers can be challenging. Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy, and distressed because of problems that may involve children, families, health and serious financial matters. Some of the people who are most in need of assistance are not well placed to find that assistance or articulate their concerns. They may have poor levels of education or literacy, mental health or other illness, or simply be worn down by the difficulties they and their family face.

‘Many people who contact the office can be frustrated by their dealings with bureaucracy ...’

In these circumstances, it is important for PCT staff to be able to deal with the caller sensitively, and help to unravel the problems so they can provide the best assistance possible. It also means it is important for our staff to be well-supported in their work and to have the necessary skills to assess a complaint and determine the most appropriate course of action. There are times when a person’s initial expectations of what we can do are unrealistic. The PCT manage each call to ensure that realistic outcomes are identified and managed.

Several aspects of the way our PCT operates enable this valuable service to occur. First, we find many people who contact us are very pleased that a person answers their phone call and they do not have to navigate through a range of options with recorded messages to find the right person to speak to, or, if they write, that their initial letter or email is responded to by a telephone call. This brings a touch of humanity that some people find missing in modern life, especially if the person is feeling marginalised from society.

Second, we do not restrict the length of time our staff can spend on any one phone call—we do not have performance indicators built on strict time limits. We want to make sure that we provide the best service possible, and to take the time to clarify a person’s concerns and discuss their options with them.

Third, we do not have scripted responses. Every person is treated as an individual. We maintain consistency through training, the provision of information resources, team work and quality assurance. This enables us to give a high standard of service to each person, best suited to their circumstances.

The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems. For example, on occasions an agency’s telephone system has malfunctioned and members of the public are not able to contact the agency, or an agency has sent out automatically generated letters advising that a person’s benefit has ceased because the agency does not have their address, though the letter is sent to that person’s address. In such situations, PCT staff contact our specialist teams who are able to make immediate contact with the relevant area in the agency involved, to advise them of the problem or to find out the status of efforts to resolve it.

‘The PCT can also provide important early warning of problems.’

Top

Complaint management system

The new complaint management system introduced in 2005–06 has been operating smoothly. Some refinements were introduced during 2006–07 to incorporate the new Ombudsman roles discharged by the office, and to improve template letters and issue strings which are used to categorise complaints and assist in statistical analysis.

Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants

Last year’s annual report outlined our participation in a cross-agency project, coordinated by the New South Wales Ombudsman’s office, to develop and trial management strategies for complainants who behave unreasonably. The project recognises categories of unreasonable conduct that place an inequitable burden on the organisation’s resources and often cause distress for staff.

We are now trialling various management strategies for responding to unreasonable conduct. Staff attended one-day training sessions and were given material outlining a range of recommended responses to difficult behaviour. Staff have been asked to test these strategies when a complainant exhibits particular behaviour. The data from this trial will inform the project’s conclusions and final paper.

Relations with government agencies

Our capacity to deal with complaints in an effective and timely manner depends to a significant extent on how we relate to, and interact with, government agencies. While we have surveyed people who complain to the office, it is many years since we undertook a systematic review of our interactions with agencies.

In June 2007 we commenced a survey of agencies to ascertain their views about our effectiveness and our interactions, and to identify areas where we could improve processes to lead to speedier and more effective resolution of complaints. During 2007–08 the survey results will be assessed and changes implemented as required.

Top

New policy on administrative deficiency

Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act spells out in broad terms the grounds on which the Ombudsman can formally make a report to an agency, and ultimately to the Prime Minister and Parliament. The s 15 grounds are broader than those on which a court undertaking judicial review can declare administrative conduct to be unlawful. It has thus been common for Ombudsman offices to use broad labels such as ‘maladministration’, ‘agency defect’ or ‘adverse finding’ to capture the scope of conclusions in an Ombudsman investigation.

In 2006 the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance on when an adverse conclusion should be recorded following an investigation of a complaint. The policy lists sixteen categories of administrative deficiency. Some of the categories apply when an error has occurred in an individual case—such as a human error, factual error, legal error, unreasonable delay, breach of duty by an officer, or inadequate explanation of a decision. Some other categories apply where the administrative deficiency is systemic or inherent in an agency—such as a resource deficiency, inadequate training of agency staff, or an unreasonable or harsh impact of legislation or a government policy.

‘... the Ombudsman adopted a new policy on ‘administrative deficiency’ to provide detailed guidance ...’

The early experience of the Ombudsman’s office is that the new policy is effective in at least two ways. First, the clear definition of when it is appropriate to record administrative deficiency against an agency has led to more consistent practice in the office. This is important, given the large number of investigation staff, complaints and agencies that come within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. An added requirement of the policy—that a finding of administrative deficiency be approved by a Senior Assistant Ombudsman—has introduced more rigour to the process.

A second benefit is that the conclusions in individual cases feed into the systemic work of the office, by highlighting issues that may need further examination by specialist teams. This better categorisation of the problem areas in agency decision making also sharpens attention on the remedial action that will best resolve problems. For example, the proportion of cases in which ‘human error’ is recorded as the basis for administrative deficiency highlights the importance of agencies apologising for errors that cause inconvenience to members of the public.

The main drawback of introducing a new policy is that it can lead in the early days to fewer findings of administrative deficiency being recorded than is probably warranted. This stems partly from occasional resistance by agencies to a new category of error or deficiency being recorded against the agency. It can also stem from the reluctance of Ombudsman staff to record such a finding when they lack experience in applying a new policy. These matters will receive further attention by the office in 2007–08.