Case studies
Some investigations by the Office find systemic problems with decision-making by public sector agencies. Other investigations lead to changes that help individuals. These case studies highlight real problems in public administration and how the Office’s work made a difference. The Queensland Ombudsman’s annual report has more case studies.
Highlighting the need for more rigour and consistency in decision-making
Assessing building applications close to boundary lines
The complaint
The complainant had neighbours who were undertaking building work on their property. The work involved a carport built to within 0.3m of the property boundary and the home of the complainant was located close to the property boundary. The complaint was about the council’s decision to allow the siting of the building, which impacted the complainant’s amenity (e.g. air flow, heat, views, daylight, etc.).
The investigation
Because building work close to boundaries can impact neighbours, proposals for houses, carports and sheds in some circumstances require council siting approval. These may be assessed against the Queensland Development Code, a planning scheme code or a council policy. The investigation considered the council’s assessment against the relevant requirements.
It was found that although council had procedures to assist decision-makers in this area, the procedures needed improvement.
Working cooperatively, the council identified a number of improvements itself but also considered improvements which the Office raised. These included consulting with affected parties (namely impacted adjoining property owners), conducting site inspections in appropriate circumstances, officers properly recording their assessments against the relevant criteria for amenity impacts, considering solutions to foreseeable impacts and training staff.
Making a difference
The council has now put in place new procedures which aim to bring more rigour to the process of assessing applications for buildings built close to boundary lines and ensure greater consistency in decision-making.
Lack of detail in agreement leads to full refund
Refund on university fees
The complaint
The complainant was an international student who had withdrawn from a course and was dissatisfied with the university’s decision not to refund the course fees. The complainant lodged an application for a refund of course fees as exceptional circumstances beyond her control that had prevented her from continuing in the course. She complained that the university had not taken into consideration her exceptional circumstances when deciding not to refund course fees.
The investigation
The university’s refunds procedure stated that a university may choose to refund moneys outside the amount specified in the refund policy on the basis of evidence provided by a student that exceptional circumstances beyond the student’s control prevented the student from honouring the written Letter of Offer provided by the university to the student.
In accordance with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), a written agreement must set out the refund requirements that apply if a student defaults. During the investigation, while it was acknowledged that the student had defaulted on the agreement, it was found that the written agreement did not adequately detail the refund requirements if a student defaults. The written agreement therefore did not meet the requirements of the ESOS Act or the National Code.
Making a difference
The university agreed to refund the balance of course fees paid by the student, a total of $10,000. The university also undertook to amend its written agreement to properly incorporate the refund statement in order to comply with its obligations under s.47B of the ESOS Act and the National Code.
Long time lag means records no longer exist
Unreasonable enforcement of fine for failure to vote 17 years ago
The complaint
In July 2017, the complainant received an overdue account reminder for $230.15 from the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER). The debt related to a fine for failing to vote in a council election in Queensland in July 2000.
The complainant disputed the original fine and the SPER debt, stating that she never received a notice about the fine. She advised she was in Melbourne at the time of the council election and recalled completing a form to indicate she was no longer living in the council electorate.
The complainant contacted SPER and explained the situation. SPER advised she would need to contact the Magistrates Court. She did so, but was told to contact the council as the issuer of the fine. The particular council no longer existed, having been merged with another council. The complainant contacted that council and was advised she would need to apply to have the case reopened.
The complainant followed this advice but received a response that her application could not be processed because the files from 17 years ago no longer existed. She contacted SPER again but was advised it could do nothing about the matter.
The council had indicated to the complainant that if she were able to reopen the matter it would not oppose her application.
The investigation
This Office established that while it may have been lawful for SPER to attempt to collect the debt, it did not appear to be reasonable because the complainant had no way to contest the matter.
This Office wrote to SPER suggesting it reconsider the matter given that the debt was a low amount, the complainant had no other debts registered with SPER, and the council had indicated it would not oppose her application if she were able to make one.
Making a difference
SPER reviewed the matter and decided to write off the debt given the circumstances of the case.
View the full annual report Queensland Ombudsman Annual Report 2017-18