Office of The Ombudsman, Hong Kong

The Office of The Ombudsman held a press conference at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 18 December 2008 to announce the OmbudsNews Issue No. 2 of the Reporting Year 2008/09, which includes the result of three direct investigations.

For details, please visit the "Ombuds News" page in this site.

Pursuant to section 7(1)(a)(ii) of The Ombudsman Ordinance, Cap. 397, The Ombudsman is initiating a direct investigation into the Free Admission Scheme for leisure facilities administered by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") from July to September 2008.

"The Scheme sparked off a spate of complaints to our Office. Criticism has focused on its planning and execution. Concern is mainly over congestion in online booking, exclusion of certain facilities, wastage and abuse of the system, resulting in regular users being squeezed out. In the course of handling these complaints, we found issues that warrant a more comprehensive study," Ms Alice Tai, The Ombudsman, said today (11 December 2008).

"The Scheme was a well intended gesture for the community to share in the joy of China hosting the Olympic Games. While it may be just a one-off exercise not likely to be repeated, the Scheme does offer experience applicable to other projects. Our direct investigation should offer points for improvement," Ms Tai continued.

The Ombudsman welcomes public views on this matter. Comments should reach the Office of The Ombudsman by 12 January 2009:

For press enquiries, please contact:
Miss Kathleen Chan, Senior Manager (External Relations) (Tel: 26290565)

3. OMBUDSMAN DECLARES DIRECT INVESTIGATION INTO GRANTING OF DISABILITY ALLOWANCE AND PROCESSING OF APPEALS BY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT

The Ombudsman, Ms Alice Tai, has decided to initiate a direct investigation to examine the consistency and objectivity in granting Disability Allowance ("DA") and the efficiency in processing appeals by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD").

"Complaints we have received raise questions of consistency and objectivity in SWD practices. Cases before us show that applicants with similar disability may, or may not, be granted DA entirely on the basis of individual doctors' medical assessment, which may differ among doctors. In fact, the definition of the term "severely disabled" is complex and there is no sufficient guidance to doctors for interpretation of the criteria for grants," said Ms Tai.

"To be eligible for DA, one must be 'severely disabled' to the extent of suffering from '100% loss of earning capacity' as stated in the First Schedule of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap.282). An example is having lost the functions of two limbs," said Ms Tai. "That Schedule was, however, meant to define the different levels of compensation for employees according to their degree of injury. This may have been the only available reference when introducing the DA scheme in the 1970s. We question whether this is appropriate or valid after three decades."

"Of particular concern is the situation that in 60% of the cases approved, the disabilities come under an all-embracing category of 'others'. This suggests that the current categorisation is not detailed or precise enough for consistent and objective assessment," Ms Tai observed.

Decisions on applicants' eligibility for DA and the level of grants are subject to appeal to the Social Security Appeal Board. Appeal hearings are arranged by SWD. "However, SWD records show the time taken to process an appeal to be usually long. In 2007/08, about one-third of the cases took over six months," said Ms Tai.

Earlier in November 2006, The Ombudsman had completed a direct investigation into the DA scheme, with emphasis on the issue of overpayment.

The Ombudsman welcomes views from members of the public on these issues. Comments should reach the Office of The Ombudsman by 19 December 2008:

4. Press Release - The Ombudsman's Awards recognises exemplary public services Immigration Department receives Grand Award this year

The Office of The Ombudsman hosted the 12^th Ombudsman's Awards Presentation Ceremony today (15 October). The Immigration Department won the Grand Award, while the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and Department of Health got the prizes of the year. Ms Alice Tai, JP, The Ombudsman, presented the Awards to the winning departments and 21 public officers. More than 130 representatives from various Government departments and public organisations shared their joy and honour.

"With the progress of our society and better understanding of public administration, our community's demands for quality services have been rising. Consequently, complaint handling has become a key feature for Government departments and public organisations in their daily work. Complaints may not involve maladministration per se. They often arise from minor matters such as the responses or manners of frontline staff. To ensure that our public administration practices are fair, open and people-oriented, public officers should pay due attention to communication skills in dealing with the public and adopt flexible methods for complaint handling," said Ms Tai at the ceremony. Through sharing experience and exchanging views with one another, the Office has worked with different departments and organisations for continuing improvements.

Over the years, successive Ombudsmen have advocated a positive attitude towards complaints and regarded complaint handling as a good opportunity for enhancing management and upgrading service standards. Meanwhile, The Ombudsman has urged Government departments and public organisations to adopt flexible complaint handling methods so that fair, open and people-oriented public administration practices can be ensured.

With the growing and diversified demand for services, the Immigration Department, winner of this year's Grand Award, has strived to improve its services. In response to inquiries from The Ombudsman, the Department adopts a cooperative and honest attitude in giving us prompt replies with detailed and pertinent information. Where inadequacies are found, the Department is ready to accept The Ombudsman's recommendations for improvement in a bid to deliver more effective services.

The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and Department of Health are both departments that directly deal with the public and are, therefore, more likely to attract complaints. Overall, these two departments have taken a positive approach towards complaints and have been very helpful in providing replies and assistance to our investigations.

The Ombudsman's Awards Scheme was launched in 1997. Since 1999, the Scheme has been extended to individual public officers who make significant contributions towards a fair, open, accountable and efficient public administration when performing their duties. Nominations are made by heads of departments and organisations listed under the Schedule to The Ombudsman Ordinance and assessed by a selection panel chaired by the Deputy Ombudsman. In 2000, the Office further expanded the Awards for Officers of Public Organisations to include complaint-related nominations.

For press enquiries, please contact:

Ms Kathleen Chan, Senior Manager (External Relations) (Tel: 26290565)

5. OMBUDSMAN PROBES HOUSING DEPARTMENT'S HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS INVOLVING PROPERTY DAMAGE OR MINOR INJURIES

The Ombudsman has decided to initiate a direct investigation into the practice of the Housing Department ("HD") for handling complaints involving property damage or minor injuries caused by the Department or its contractors.

"Every now and then, public housing tenants complain to this Office against HD for mishandling such cases. Where the complaint includes a claim for damages, HD would almost invariably leave the case entirely with the loss adjuster of its insurer without itself examining the incident to identify the cause or the need for service or management improvement," Ms Alice Tai, The Ombudsman, said today (5 October 2008).

"Naturally, any inquiry by the loss adjuster aims mainly at addressing the claim for damages or compensation, not management and service issues in HD's operations or its supervision of its contractors. Our concern is, therefore, that the root cause of such cases continues unchecked," Ms Tai continued.

The Ombudsman has, therefore, decided to initiate a direct investigation, to cover:

(a) HD's procedures for handling complaints involving property damage or minor injuries caused by HD or its contractors ¡V

The Ombudsman welcomes public views on this matter. Comments should reach the Office of The Ombudsman by 4 November 2008:

Address : 30/F, China Merchants Tower, Shun Tak Centre
168-200 Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong

6. Ombudsman's Inquiry Leads to Simpler Procedures for Reporting Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Messages

The Ombudsman has completed an inquiry on the procedures for reporting breach of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, commonly dubbed "junk message". As a result, the Office of the Telecommunications Authority ("OFTA") has simplified its report form and publicised other options, to be more user-friendly.

Under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance, enacted last year, persons who still receive junk messages after registration onto the relevant Do-not-call Register may complain to OFTA by completing its report form.

Prompted by a public complaint about cumbersome form-filling, The Ombudsman initiated the inquiry in March 2008.

At that time, a complainant had to complete a separate form to report each and every junk message. This meant repeating personal data and consent for disclosure where multiple messages are reported.

"We were concerned that this might deter the public from reporting junk messages," said Mrs Helen Yu, Acting Ombudsman.

The form also asked complainants for more details than were essential. For example, they were required to provide the full text and detailed description of the junk message. The form did not make it clear that for junk fax messages, complainants had only to attach a copy of the message, without having to give a detailed account.

OFTA's reporting procedures, in fact, also included alternatives to cater for persons who have difficulty in expressing themselves in writing e.g. by telephone or in person. However, The Ombudsman noted that these alternatives had not been publicised.

"Upon our inquiry, OFTA was commendably prompt in response," remarked Mrs Yu. In April, OFTA revised the form to cut repetition of personal data and consent for disclosure in case of multiple reports. Moreover, complainants of non-fax messages are only required to describe briefly the broad promotional elements of the messages. It is also made clear that complainants of fax messages are not required to describe the messages.

By late June, OFTA had already started to publicise its procedures for receiving non-written reports. Staff will complete the report form with information provided verbally by the complainant and then fax or mail it to him or her for confirmation. In addition, report by letter is accepted as an alternative to the report form.

"OFTA's readiness to improve is a fine example of good customer service," said Mrs Yu. "Greater user-friendliness will enhance the effectiveness of the regulatory scheme against junk message." The Ombudsman appreciates OFTA's positive action.

7. Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2007/08 Highlights Concern over Lack of Coordination and Ignorance of Information Code

The Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2007/08 is tabled in the Legislative Council today (9 July 2008). A total of 4,987 complaints and 12,169 enquiries were received this year, a slight drop from last year's record high. The five causes most often mentioned by complainants have remained much the same:

"I remain concerned over the inadequate coordination among some Government departments in activities that involve multi-departments, say, on street management and abatement of environmental nuisances," said Ms Alice Tai, The Ombudsman.

"Departments must view such issues from a higher perspective. However many departments may be involved, it is still one and the same Government to members of the public. Any argument over ownership of responsibilities among departments will be seen by the public as buck-passing, and will ultimately tarnish Government¡¦s image and undermine its credibility," continued Ms Tai.

Another matter of concern highlighted in The Ombudsman's Review is the apparent ignorance with some departments of Government's Code on Access to Information, despite its implementation since 1995.

"The Code is the principal safeguard against improper withholding of Government-held information from the public. Except for those special reasons under Part 2 of the Code, civil servants must provide the information requested by the public. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that departments are conversant with its provisions. We have drawn the attention of the Administration to the ignorance or lack of understanding of the Code among some civil servants and the community at large. We have, therefore, urged for promotion of awareness and more extensive training," Ms Tai reflected.

In 2007/08, The Ombudsman completed four full-scale direct investigations and two "mini" direct investigations. Four direct investigations were in progress at the end of March 2008: on effectiveness of the Integrated Call Centre, street management, CSSA special grants and support services for students with specific learning difficulties.

During the year, The Ombudsman made 42 and 61 recommendations respectively, on completion of full investigation into 38 cases and the four direct investigations. So far, 98 (ie 95.1%) of them have been accepted by the organisations for implementation and 5 (ie 4.9%) are still under consideration.

Ms Tai was gratified that acceptance of her recommendations continued to be high. Recommendations aimed at improving public administration and enhance the quality of services.

"Occasionally, complainants are dissatisfied with my decision not to take up their case. However, we need a prima facie case to warrant investigation. Complainants must give such basic facts as the organisation and the matter for grievance, details of time and any persons involved. It is not the function or practice of my Office to go witch-hunting on empty allegations," observed Ms Tai.

Upon conclusion of a case, a complainant dissatisfied with The Ombudsman's findings may seek a review of their cases. The Ombudsman varied her decision in 7 cases after reviewing 310 cases on request this year.

The Annual Report is available on The Ombudsman's website: www.ombudsman.gov.hk. Members of the public may get a copy from the Resource Centre at 25/F, West Tower, Shun Tak Centre, 168-200 Connaught Road Central, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, while stock lasts.

For press enquiry, please contact Ms Kathleen Chan, Senior Manager (External Relations) at 2629 0565.

From February 2007, the five-day week scheme has been extended to the Resource Centre of the Office of The Ombudsman. However, the following services to the public will remain unchanged:

	the enquiry counter
	Duty Officers for fresh complaints
	telephone complaints

Opening hours will be as follows:

Complaint and Enquiry Service

Resource Centre

Monday to Friday

9:00 am – 5:00 pm

9:00 am – 1:00 pm
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Saturday

9:00am - 12:00 noon

Closed

Sunday & Public Holidays
Closed

We are committed to serving our community in redressing grievances and addressing issues of maladministration in the public sector. We aim to improve the quality of service and promote open and accountable governance.