Make a decision - Casebook 2020 examples

There are four stages in good decision-making:
1. Prepare for the decision
2. Develop the decision
3. Make the decision
4. Communicate the decision

Creating compatibility in systems to support vulnerable people

A statutory authority approved Ella’s financial assistance application for therapy services. She moved overseas. Ella understood the authority would make payments directly to her therapist after receiving his invoices for each session. A number of invoices had been submitted to the authority, but sending cheques by post meant payment was significantly delayed.

She corresponded with the authority about the payment delay and the resulting effect of delayed therapy. The authority advised her that its payment system did not allow for international electronic funds transfers. Ella complained to this Office.

The result
This Office identified that international electronic funds transfers could be done by the authority’s shared service provider. The authority agreed to work with the service provider to make international funds transfers in Ella’s case, and for others in similar circumstances.

Ombudsman insight
Complaints can be opportunities for business improvement that otherwise might not have been apparent.

Misinterpretation of legislation led to possible reputational damage

The department received a complaint from a member of the public about the disturbance of flying foxes at a site where development works were occurring. When a departmental officer inspected the site they identified particular trees as being part of the flying fox roost. The department issued a warning letter to the property owner/developer stating that the roost must not be disturbed.

The environmental consultant for the development became aware of the letter and lodged an objection with the department on the basis that it had misinterpreted the relevant legislation. The department disagreed and confirmed its position.

Due to project timeframes and pressures, the environmental consultant contacted the department seeking its approval of a management plan for the site so development works could continue and would not be delayed. However, at the same time, the consultant continued with the complaint to the department about legislative misinterpretation.

Shortly before the department approved a management plan, the consultant lodged a complaint with this Office, concerned that the department had not resolved the disagreement over the identification of trees as part of the flying fox roost.

The result
This Office agreed with the consultant’s concerns. The investigator presented this Office’s interpretation of the legislation to the department and the latter acknowledged it had incorrectly applied the legislation. The department confirmed the identified trees were not part of a roost.

Although the department had reversed its position, the consultant remained concerned about the effect on their reputation, as the department had initially notified the property owner/developer about the warning letter.

The department accepted a recommendation to:

• review policies and procedures for inspecting alleged disturbances of flying fox roosts
• ensure processes complied with the legislation
• formally notify the consultant and the property owner/developer of the department’s error, to mitigate any reputational damage to the consultant.

Ombudsman insight
As decision-makers, agencies have a responsibility to be reasonably satisfied about factual matters.

Experts can disagree about what legislation requires, especially in the absence of court interpretations. A robust internal review is an opportunity to consider competing views and remake decisions.

University refunds tuition fees for international students after visa refusal

Tanaka applied to study at a Queensland university and prepaid thousands of dollars in tuition fees.

A question on the course application form asked ‘Have you ever had a visa application rejected?’. Tanaka believed this question only applied to study visas and not a tourist visa that he was denied the previous year. On that basis, he answered he had not previously had a visa application rejected.

The university received information from the relevant department that Tanaka’s student visa was denied, and that he had previously been refused a tourist visa.

Following the visa refusal, Tanaka sought a refund from the university for the prepaid tuition fees.

The university advised Tanaka it was withholding the tuition fees as he provided incorrect and/or misleading information on his application. Tanaka complained to this Office.

The result
This Office investigated whether it was reasonable for the university to deny a refund of Tanaka’s tuition fees in the circumstances, and whether the university’s policy about refunds and the application of penalties was reasonable and lawful. This Office considered the university’s policy did not appear to be in accordance with the Education Services for Overseas Students (Calculation of Refund) Specification 2014 (the specification). The specification allows for students who have been denied a visa and not commenced their studies to be refunded their tuition fees minus $500 or 5% (whichever is the lowest amount).

The application form’s visa question had also been misinterpreted in three other international student complaints to this Office. This Office suggested amending the question for clarity to, ‘Have you ever had any type of visa application rejected by any country?’

As he was unable to commence his studies due to the visa refusal, the university agreed to refund Tanaka the prepaid tuition fee minus a $500 administration fee, and amend the question about visa history on the application form. Tanaka was satisfied with the outcome.

Applicants in similar circumstances
The university stated that future refund applications by international students who have not been able to commence studies due to a visa refusal will be examined in accordance with the specification. In light of this statement, and the corrective action the university took in Tanaka’s case, the investigator considered that similar complaints to this Office, and to the university since the policy commenced in August 2018, should also be re-examined. The university agreed and refunded tuition fees (less admin fees) for the three students who complained to this Office. It also reviewed university records since 2018, notifying anyone who had not received a refund that the prepaid tuition fees decision had been reviewed and a refund would be processed.

Ombudsman insight
Agencies need to ensure that their policies are clear and unambiguous before financial penalties are imposed. Customer feedback can be used to revise language and ensure communication is clear and contemporary.