annual report the ombudsman - legcoarrangements” (“maa”) was signed between the director of...

2013

Annual R

eport of The Om

budsman 25th Issue • June 2013

Environmentally friendly paper has been used in the production of this annual report.

Annual Report ofThe Ombudsman

Office of The Ombudsman

Address 30/F, China Merchants Tower Shun Tak Centre 168-200 Connaught Road Central, Hong KongPost Box G.P.O. Box No. 3300, Hong KongEnquiry and Complaint Hotline (852) 2629 0555Fax (852) 2882 8149Website http://www.ombudsman.hkEnquiry email address [email protected] email address [email protected]

Vision

To ensure that Hong Kong is served by a fair and efficient public administration which is committed to accountability, openness and quality of service

Mission

Through independent, objective and impartial investigation, to redress grievances and address issues arising from maladministration in the public sector and bring about improvement in the quality and standard of and promote fairness in public administration

Functions

The Ombudsman should serve as the community’s watchdog to ensure that:• Bureaucraticconstraintsdonotinterferewithadministrativefairness• Publicauthoritiesarereadilyaccessibletothepublic• Abuseofpowerisprevented• Wrongsarerighted• Factsarepointedoutwhenpublicofficersareunjustlyaccused• Humanrightsareprotected• Thepublicsectorcontinuestoimprovequalityandefficiency

Values

• Maintainingimpartialityandobjectivityinourinvestigations• Makingourselvesaccessibleandaccountabletothepublicandorganisationsunderourjurisdiction• Accordingthepublicandorganisationscourtesyandrespect• Upholdingprofessionalismintheperformanceofourfunctions

Performance Measures

• Speedofcasework• Complainants’levelofsatisfactionwithcasehandling• Redressobtained• Recommendedimprovementmeasurescommittedtoand/orimplemented• Non-repetitionofcomplaints

06

History in Brief

10

The Ombudsman’s Review

14Chapter 1

Our Role, Jurisdiction and Powers14 Jurisdiction

15 Actions Not for Investigation

15 Restrictions

15 Powers of Investigation and Recommendation

32

Chapter 5

Office Administration32 Staffing

33 Staff Training

34 Revamp of Information Technology Systems

34 Complaints against the Office

16Chapter 2

Our Procedures16 Complaint Handling

• Modes of Complaint

• Complainants’ Representation

• Topical Complaints

• Assessment

• Inquiry

• Mediation

• Full Investigation

• Review

18 Direct Investigation

• DI Assessment

• Investigation Methodology

19 Implementation of Recommendations

19 Secrecy Requirement and Publication of Reports

19 Essence of Our Investigation

20

Chapter 3

Performance and Results20 Enquiries and Complaints Processing

• Topical Complaints

• Mode of Lodging Complaints

• Complaints Handled

22 Major Causes for Complaint

23 Most Popular Targets of Complaint

23 Outcome of Investigations and Inquiries

23 Direct Investigation

24 Recommendations

24 Our Performance

25 Overview

26

Chapter 4

Reward and Challenge26 Enhancing Quality Administration

26 Mediating Disputes

27 Transparent Government and Access to Information

27 Identifying and Tackling Systemic Issues

• Lack of Determination to Deal with

Long-standing Problems

• Failure to Keep Proper Records

28 Issues Examined by Direct Investigation

30 Challenges from Parties

• Re-assessment of Cases

• Review of Cases

• Judicial Review and Litigation

• Challenging Complainant Behaviours

• Resistance to Our Inquiries

31 Overview

Contents

36

Chapter 6

Publicity and External Relations36 Public Education and Promotion

• Publicity Campaign

• Roving Exhibition

• Press Conferences and

Media Releases

• Talk for Departments and

Organisations

• Youth Education

• Online Promotion

39 Working with Professionals, Community Leaders, etc.

• Advisers and JPs

• Legislative Councillors

• The Ombudsman’s Awards

41 Overseas and Mainland Liaison

41 Looking Ahead

42

List of Annexes44 Annex 1 Glossary of Terms

46 Annex 2 List of Scheduled Organisations

47 Annex 3 Circumstances Where Complaints are not Followed Up or Investigated

48 Annex 4 Flow Chart on Handling of a Complaint

49 Annex 5 Index of Direct Investigations and Selected Direct Investigation Assessments Completed

50 Annex 6 Summaries of Direct Investigations Completed

63 Annex 7 Index of Cases Concluded by Full Investigation

79 Annex 8 Summaries of Selected Cases Concluded by Full Investigation

136 Annex 9 Summaries of Selected Cases Concluded by Inquiry

139 Annex 10 Examples of Improvement Measures Introduced by Organisations Following Our Inquiry or Investigation

144 Annex 11 Summary of Selected Case on Code on Access to Information

146 Annex 12 Achievement of Performance Pledges

147 Annex 13 Complainants Charter

148 Annex 14 Organisation Chart

149 Annex 15 Panel of Advisers

150 Annex 16 Visits to the Office of The Ombudsman

154

List of Tables156 Table 1 Caseload

157 Table 2 Enquiries/Complaints Received

157 Table 3 Nature of Complaints Processed

158 Table 4 Distribution of Enquiries/ Complaints Received

162 Table 5 Distribution of Complaints Processed

162 Table 6 Complaints Pursued and Concluded: Top Ten Organisations

163 Table 7 Results of Complaints Concluded by Full Investigation

163 Table 8 Forms of Maladministration Substantiated by Full Investigation

164 Table 9 Results of Complaints Concluded by Inquiry

167 Table 10 Complaint Processing Time

Contents

168

Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2013

6 7TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013 TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013

HistoryinBrief

History in Brief

198820 July TheCommissionerforAdministrativeComplaints(“COMAC”)BillwaspassedbytheLegislativeCouncil(“LegCo”)

19891 February TheCOMACOrdinancewasenacted FirstCommissionerMrArthurGarcia,JPassumedoffice

1 March TheOfficeofCOMACbecameoperational with staff seconded from Government

15 November COMACbecameamemberoftheInternational Ombudsman Institute (“IOI”)

1993 21 July Legislative review completed, the COMAC(Amendment)BillwasintroducedintoLegCo

1994 1 February SecondCommissionerMrAndrewSo,JPassumedoffice

24 June TheCOMACOrdinancewasamended: • toenablethepublictolodge

complaints directly, instead of byreferralfromLegCoMembers

• toextendthejurisdictiontosome major statutory bodies

• toempowertheCommissionerto publish anonymised investigation reports

• toempowertheCommissionerto initiate direct investigation

30 June Adviserswereappointedtoprovideexpertadviceandprofessionalopinion

1 July Chinese title of the Commissioner was changed to 「申訴專員」 and the Office to 「申訴專員公署」

FirstCommissionerMrArthurGarcia,JP

SecondCommissionerMrAndrewSo,JP

1995 1 March JurisdictionwasextendedtoinvestigationintoallegedbreachofCodeonAccessto Information

23-25, 27 October TheCommissionerhostedthe15thAustralasianandPacificOmbudsmanConferenceandtheInternationalOmbudsmanSymposium

1996 1 March Non-officialJusticesofthePeace(“JPs”)wereenlistedinaJPsAssistanceScheme

15 -16 AprilTheOmbudsman’sOfficeparticipatedintheestablishmentoftheAsianOmbudsmanAssociation(“AOA”)andbecameafoundingmember

24 October TheOmbudsmanwaselectedtotheBoardofDirectorsoftheIOI

27 December Englishtitleswerechangedto“TheOmbudsman”and“OfficeofTheOmbudsman”

1997 1 April Mediationservicewaslaunchedasanalternativedisputeresolutionmethod

25 July TheOmbudsman’sAwardswereintroducedtoacknowledgepublicorganisations handling complaints positively

1998 8 May The Ombudsman was elected SecretaryoftheAOA

1999 1 April ThirdOmbudsmanMsAliceTai,JPassumed office

22 July TheOmbudsman’sAwardswereextendedtoacknowledgepublicofficers’ contribution towards better quality services

ThirdOmbudsmanMsAliceTai,JP

IOIBoardMeeting

2009 1 April FourthOmbudsmanMrAlanLaiNin,GBS,JPassumedoffice

11 June TheOmbudsmanwasre-electedtotheBoardofDirectorsoftheIOI

2010 19 October The Ombudsman was elected Treasurer of the IOI

FourthOmbudsmanMrAlanLaiNin,GBS,JP


HistoryinBrief

TheOmbudsman’sAwards2000

SigningofMAA

AOAConference

IOIMid-termBoardMeeting

2000 27 July TheOmbudsman’sAwardswerefurtherextendedtoacknowledgepublicofficershandlingcomplaintsprofessionally

2 November TheOmbudsmanwaselectedtotheBoardofDirectorsoftheIOI

2008 5-8 November TheOmbudsmanhostedtheBoardofDirectorsMeetingoftheIOI

2001 28 March Telephone complaint service was introduced

19 December TheOmbudsman(Amendment)Ordinance2001cameintooperation:• toestablishTheOmbudsmanasacorporationsolewithfullpowersto

conduct financial and administrative matters• toempowerTheOmbudsmantosettermsandconditionsofappointment

for staff• toadoptsystemsandprocessesseparatefromGovernment

2002 6 September Office moved to permanent accommodationatShunTakCentreinSheungWan

16 October The Ombudsman was elected SecretaryoftheIOI

2011 8 December TheOmbudsmanwasre-electedSecretaryoftheAOA

2004 1 AprilMsAliceTai,JPstartedhersecondterm(2004–2009)asTheOmbudsman

10 SeptemberTheOmbudsmanwasre-electedasSecretaryoftheIOI

13 DecemberWiththedepartureofthelastcivilservice secondee, this Office was staffedbyaworkforceentirelyappointed by The Ombudsman under The Ombudsman Ordinance

2012 5-10 May TheOmbudsmanhostedtheMid-termBoardofDirectorsMeetingofthe IOI

22-24 May TheOmbudsmanco-organisedtheIOIRegionalTrainingofAsiaandAustralasia&PacificRegionswiththeCommissionAgainstCorruptionofMacao

2005 24 October A“MemorandumofAdministrativeArrangements”(“MAA”)wassignedbetweentheDirectorofAdministrationandTheOmbudsman to set out the general principles and guidelines governing the administrative arrangements for thisOfficeandtheworkingrelationship with Government

28 November - 1 DecemberTheOmbudsmanhostedthe9thAOAConference


The Ombudsman’s Review

InmylastReview,IhighlightedtheproblemofthesprawlofunauthoriseddevelopmentsandillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandintheNewTerritories,aswellasthatoftheproliferationofon-streetpromotionalactivities.Thisyear,examplesaboundofseeminglysmallorlocalisedproblemsbeingleftunattendedorshovedarounduntiltheygrowandbecomeunwieldy.AcaseinpointistheproblemassociatedwithparalleltradingactivitiesinNorthDistrict,whichhasgrowntoacalamitousmagnitude,assomewoulddescribeit.Butthisstateofaffairshasnotcomeintobeingovernight.MyOfficehasbeenreceivingpubliccomplaintsabouttheproblemasearlyas2007.Timeandagain,wehaveurgedthedepartmentsconcernedtotakerigorousactionsintandemandtoworkoutatotalsolutioninconsultationwiththelocalDistrictCouncilandotherrelevantparties.

Thereismuchwisdomintheoldsaying“astitchintimesavesnine”.Itistime-honoured,notarchaic.Itismuchbetterandeasiertoniptheprobleminthebudthan wait until it reaches crisis level when the whole community gets out of patienceandvehementlyclamoursforGovernmentactions.IappealtotheAdministrationtolearnthelesson.

WhilemyOffice’sinquiriesandinvestigationsinvariablymeanmoreworkfortheGovernment departments concerned, such actions all serve to either vindicate what they have done or identify administrative deficiencies for improvement which would helppreventrecurrenceofmistakesandcomplaints.Asitturnedout,themajorityof complaints were found unsubstantiated, meaning that the departments

concernedwereexoneratedafteranindependentandimpartialinquiry/investigationbymyOffice.Unfortunately,therearestillGovernmentofficerswhodonotappreciatethemeaningandpositivevalueofourintervention.Somehaveshownreluctanceinprovidinguswithallthenecessaryinformation.Othershavebehavedinanoverlydefensivemanner.IconsideritnecessaryfortheAdministrationtoprovideGovernmentofficerswithmoreeducationonourwork.MyOfficewillbepleasedtoassist.

Misunderstandingofourroleandpowersisalsonotedamongthepublic.Atoneend of the spectrum, some people regarded our publicity efforts as over zealous, bringingunduepressureonGovernmentofficers.Attheotherend,therearethosewho would immediately complain to us whenever they are dissatisfied with an organisation,expectingthatwewillpromptlyorderthatorganisationtomeettheirdemand.Ofcourse,wewilltrytocontacttheorganisationexpeditiouslyandaskforurgentattentionifthecomplainantisindeedinaseriousplight.However,TheOmbudsman Ordinance stipulates that our investigation shall not affect any action takenbytheorganisationundercomplaintortheorganisation’spowertotakefurther action with respect to any of its decisions which are subject to the investigation.MyOfficecanonlymakerecommendationsforredressorimprovement,andwecandosoonlyafterconductingaproperinquiry/investigation.Itwould,therefore,sometimesbringaboutquickerresultsifthecomplainantweretoreporthis/herproblemstraighttotheheadoftheorganisationconcerned.AcomplaintlodgedwithmyOfficedoesnotalwaysleadtoaquickfixormorefavourabletreatmentofthecomplainant’scasebytheorganisation.

WewillcontinuetopublicisetheroleofTheOmbudsmanandpromoteapositivecomplaintculture.

Ourexperiencewithpubliccomplaintsisthatitisnotuncommonforcomplainantstoseekanapologyfromtheorganisationundercomplaintfortheinjusticethattheyhavesustained.Whileapologiesarenotmagicpotionsthatworkineverycase,theycanbequiteeffectiveinaddressingthekeyneedsofcomplainants.Insomecases,anappropriateapologyisinfactthemainthingthattheyareafter.Idorecommend that Government departments and public bodies adopt a more open attitudetowardsmakingofapologiesoratleastexpressionofsympathy,sorroworregretforthecomplainant’ssufferings.SuchactsoftengoalongwaytowardsimprovingtherelationshipbetweentheGovernmentdepartments/publicbodiesconcernedandtheaggrievedpersons.

InApril1997,mediationwasfirstlaunchedbymyOfficeasanalternativedisputeresolution method to deal with complaints involving no, or only minor, maladministration.Afteralltheseyears,someorganisationsandmembersofthepublicstillharbourmisgivingsabouttheimplicationsofthismethod.Itismywishthat more use be made of mediation where appropriate, since it is a totally harmless approachoftenconduciveto“win-win”situations.Intheyeartocome,myOfficewillcontinuetomakeeffortstopromoteunderstandingofmediationamongGovernmentdepartments,publicbodiesandcomplainants.

Alan N LaiThe Ombudsman31March2013

MuchasIdisliketoharponsimilarissues year after year, I feel obliged, as Ombudsman, to highlight again inthisReviewtwosuchissuesstillprevalent as shown in the cases we handled: a compartmental mentality among Government departments and their insensitivity totheemergenceofnewproblems.

TheOmbudsman’sReview

Chapters


Chapter1OurRole,JurisdictionandPowers

Chapter

1 Our Role,Jurisdiction and Powers

1.1EstablishedunderTheOmbudsmanOrdinance(“theOrdinance”), Cap397oftheLawsofHongKong,ourOfficefunctionsasthecity’sindependentwatchdogofpublicadministration.WeinvestigateactionsbyGovernment departments and public bodies for administrative deficiencies andrecommendremedialmeasures.Wepromotegoodpublicadministrationforresponsiveandresponsible,fairandopengovernance.

Jurisdiction1.2TheOmbudsmanhaspowerstoinvestigatecomplaintsfromaggrieved persons about maladministration by the Government departmentsandpublicbodieslistedinPartIofSchedule1tothe

Ordinance(seeAnnex 2).Wearealwaysonthelookout,andmaintainclosecontactwiththeAdministration,forpossibleadditionstotheSchedule.

1.3 Besidesinvestigatingcomplaintsreceived,TheOmbudsmanmay,ofhisownvolition, initiate direct investigation into areas of suspected maladministration usuallyinvolvingsystemicproblemsorissuesofsignificantpublicinterest.

1.4Section2oftheOrdinancedefines“maladministration”asinefficient,badorimproper administration, including: unreasonable conduct; abuse of power or authority; unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory procedures anddelay;discourtesyandlackofconsiderationforothers.

1.5 TheHongKongPoliceForce,theIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruptionandtwootherorganisationsinPartIIofSchedule1totheOrdinance(seeAnnex 2)arenotsubjecttoourinvestigation,exceptforcasesofnon-compliancewiththeCodeonAccesstoInformation1.

Actions Not for Investigation1.6 TheOmbudsman’spurviewisnotwithoutprohibition.Casesrelated,inter alia, to legal proceedings or prosecution decisions, contractual and other commercial transactions, personnel matters and imposition or variation of conditionsoflandgrantareoutofbounds.AfulllistofsuchprohibitionsisatAnnex 3.

Restrictions1.7 TheOrdinancealsoprescribesothercircumstancesunderwhichTheOmbudsmanshallnotconductaninvestigation.Forexample,thecomplainanthashadknowledgeofthesubjectofcomplaintforovertwoyears,isanonymous,orisnotthepersonaggrievedorasuitablerepresentativeofthatperson.Suchrestrictions are also detailed at Annex 3.

1.8 Nevertheless,insomecases,TheOmbudsmanhasdiscretionwhetherornottoconduct,ordiscontinue,aninvestigation.Acasemaybetakenup,forinstance,ifthecomplainantisabletoexplainsatisfactorilywhythecomplaintcouldnothavebeenlodgedwithintwoyears.

Powers of Investigation and Recommendation1.9 UndertheOrdinance,TheOmbudsmanhasawiderangeofinvestigativepowers: conducting inquiries, obtaining information and documents, summoning witnessesandinspectingpremisesoforganisationsundercomplaint.

1.10 WhileTheOmbudsman’sinvestigationshallnotaffectanyactiontakenbytheorganisationundercomplaintortheorganisation’spowertotakefurtheractionwith respect to any decision which is subject to the investigation, The Ombudsman mayreporthisfindingsandmakerecommendationsforredressorimprovementtotheorganisation.

1.11 Whereanorganisationdoesnotadequatelyactuponhisrecommendation,TheOmbudsmanmaysubmitareporttotheChiefExecutiveoftheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion.Whereaseriousirregularityorinjusticeisfound,TheOmbudsmanmaymakeafurtherreporttotheChiefExecutive.Insuchevent,theOrdinancerequires that a copy of the report be laid before the Legislative CouncilwithinonemonthorsuchlongerperiodastheChiefExecutivemaydetermine.

1TheCodewasintroducedin1995tomakeavailabletothepublicasmuchGovernment-heldinformationaspossible,unlesstherearevalidreasons–relatedtopublic,privateorcommercialinterests–towithholdit.ItappliestoallGovernmentdepartments,theHongKongMonetaryAuthorityandtheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption.


Chapter2OurProcedures

Our Procedures

Complaint Handling

Modes of Complaint

2.1 Complaintsmaybelodgedinperson,byemail,byfax,orbymail,postage-freeifourcomplaintformisused.Complaintsmayalsobemadebytelephoneforsimplecasesinvolvingnotmorethantwoorganisations.

Complainants’ Representation

2.2 Foracomplaintmadebyanindividual,he/sheshouldnormallybethepersonaggrievedunlessthatpersonisunabletoactforhimself/herself(seepara. 1.7 of Chapter1).

2.3 Foracomplaintmadeonbehalfofabodycorporate,thecomplainanthastosatisfyTheOmbudsmanthatthebodycorporatehasauthorisedhim/herasitsrepresentative.TheOmbudsmanwillallowlegalrepresentationifheconsidersitjustified.

Topical Complaints

2.4Fromtimetotime,wereceivecomplaintsfrommorethanoneperson,moreorlessconcurrently,inrespectofaparticularcurrentissueorhottopic.Wetermsuchcases“topicalcomplaints”todistinguishthemfromcomplaintcases on disparate issues or topics, so as to reflect more accurately our caseload andthefrequencyofcomplaintagainstdifferentorganisations.

Assessment

2.5OurAssessmentTeamusuallyscreensallincomingcomplaintswithinadayortwotoexaminewhethertheycomewithinthestatutorypurviewofTheOmbudsman and whether they have a prima faciecasetowarrantinvestigation.The focus of assessment is on the substance and merits of the complaint, not

quantityorlevelofpersistence.Theteamwillseekfurtherinformationorclarificationfromthecomplainantifnecessary.

2.6 WeoperateaDutyOfficerSchemeunderwhichourinvestigationofficersmeetnewcomplainantsface-to-facetoobtainessentialinformationontheircasesforassessmentandtobriefthemonourproceduresandrestrictions.

2.7 Cases“screenedin”gotooneofoursixinvestigationteamsforinquiry,resolutionbymediationorfullinvestigation.Fortherest,arecommendationwillbemadetoTheOmbudsmanfornotpursuingthecase.

2.8 WhereTheOmbudsmandecidesnottopursueacase,weaimtonotifythecomplainantofthereason(s)within15workingdays(seeAnnex 12 for our performancepledges).Evenwithcomplaints“screenedout”becausethecomplainants are anonymous, unidentifiable or not personally aggrieved, we do not dismissthemlightlybutmayexamineifanyseriousorsystemicmaladministrationorsignificantissuewasinvolved.Thismayprompttopicsfordirectinvestigationassessmentorevendirectinvestigation(seeparas. 2.20 – 2.24).

2.9 Insomecasesnotpursued,asthecomplainantsmaybeinneedof services from some Government departments or public bodies, we takeituponourselvestoadvisethemwhereandhowtogetsuchservices.

2.10 Onappealbycomplainantsofcases“screenedout”,theAssessmentTeamwill“re-assess”suchcasesandpresentitsrecommendation to The Ombudsman for decision as to whether the caseshouldbere-openedforfollow-up.

Inquiry

2.11 TheOrdinanceprovidesthatforthepurposesofdeterminingwhethertoundertakeafullinvestigation(seeparas. 2.15 – 2.18),TheOmbudsmanmayconductsuch“preliminaryinquiries”asheconsidersappropriate.Intheinterest of complainants, we often use this procedure to resolve complaint cases of ageneralnaturemorespeedily,withoutunnecessarilyresortingtothemoretime-consumingactionoffullinvestigation.Forsimplicity,wecallthis“inquiry”.

2.12 Inconductinganinquiry,weasktheorganisationundercomplainttorespondtousand,ifweseefit,tothecomplainantinparallel.Wewillexaminesuchresponse, the complainant’s views on it, if applicable, together with any other relevantinformationorevidencethatwemayhavecollected.Wewill,inconclusion,presentourfindingstothecomplainantandmakesuggestionstotheorganisationforremedyorimprovementwherenecessary.Wheredeeperandfullerprobing is needed before we can conclude the case, we will start a full investigation.

Mediation

2.13 Withtheconsentofboththecomplainantandtheorganisationcomplainedagainst,TheOmbudsmanmaytrytosettleacasebymediation.Thisalternativemethod for dispute resolution is suitable for cases involving only minor or no maladministration.Thetwopartiesmeetvoluntarilytoexploreamutuallyacceptablesolution.Ourinvestigationofficerstrainedinmediationactasimpartialmediators.

2.14 Ifmediationfailstoresolvethematter,orthecomplainantrequeststoreactivate his complaint, our Office will assign another investigation officer to initiateaninquiryorafullinvestigationafresh.Thisistoensureobjectiveprocessingnotinfluencedbypriorknowledgefromthemediationmeeting.

Chapter

2


Chapter2OurProcedures

Full Investigation

2.15 Forcomplexcaseswhichappeartoinvolveissuesofprinciple,seriousmaladministration, gross injustice, systemic flaws or procedural deficiencies, or simplyrequiredeeperandfullerprobing(seepara. 2.12),ourOfficewillconductafullinvestigation.

2.16 Thisisanextensiveorintensiveprocessofprobingtoestablishthefacts.Besidesexaminingdocuments,wemaysummonwitnesses,counter-checkdatawiththecomplainantandconductsiteinspections.Wherenecessary,wewillconsultmembersofourPanelofAdvisers,whoareallexpertswithgoodstandinginprofessionalfields(seeAnnex 15).

2.17 Wewillalsoinvitecommentsonourpreliminaryobservationsfromanyorganisation or individual that may be criticised or adversely affected by the investigationreport.Whenfinalised,thereportwillbepresentedtothecomplainant for information and to the head of the organisation concerned for implementationofourrecommendations.

2.18 Inourinvestigationreports,complaintsareclassifiedaccordingtohowfartheallegationsofmaladministrationarewellfounded:“substantiated”,“partiallysubstantiated”or“unsubstantiated”.Insomecases,althoughthespecificallegations in the complaint are unsubstantiated, other significant acts or aspects of maladministrationareidentified.Theseareclassifiedas“substantiatedotherthanalleged”.ThedifferentcategoriesofoutcomearedefinedintheGlossary of Terms(seeAnnex 1).

Review

2.19 Complainantsdissatisfiedwithourfindingsorconclusionsmayseekareviewoftheircasesbyprovidingsupportingargumentsand/orinformation.SuchrequestsarefirstassessedbytheAssistantOmbudsmanconcerned,whowillconsider the complainant’s grounds for review and whether the request should be entertained;ifso,hewillassignasuitableinvestigationofficertore-examinethecaseindetailandseekfurtherinformationorcommentsfromtheorganisationundercomplaintasnecessary.AsubmissionwilleventuallybemadetoTheOmbudsman,viatheDeputyOmbudsman,todeterminewhetherouroriginalconclusionshouldbeupheldorvaried.

Direct Investigation2.20TheOmbudsman’spowertoconductdirectinvestigations(“DIs”)intheabsence of complaints enables him to pursue issues raised by people not personallyaggrieved(seepara. 2.8),aswellastolookatmattersatamacrolevelasopposedtoindividualcases.Essentially,thelattermeansexaminingsystemswithsystemicorwidespreaddeficiencies.ADImaybepromptedbysignificant topical issues of community concern, implementation of new or revisedGovernmentpoliciesorrepeatedcomplaintsofparticularmatters.

DI Assessment

2.21 BeforedecidingwhetherornottolaunchaDIagainstanorganisation,wemayconductaninitialassessment(“DIassessment”).Forthispurpose,wemayresearch public information from annual reports and websites, legislation and media reports,orseekinformationfromtheorganisationdirectly.Ifourassessmentpointsto the need for further study, we will formally notify the head of the organisation andinitiateaDI.

2.22 WhereourDIassessmentfindsnosignificantmaladministrationortheorganisation concerned has made proactive improvement, we will simply conclude ourstudyandofferourfindingstotheorganisation.Whereappropriate,wemakesuggestionsforimprovement.

Investigation Methodology

2.23 TheproceduresforDIareakintothoseforinvestigationintoindividualcomplaints.Unlikethelatter,however,wemaydeclarepubliclyourinitiationofDIstoinviteviewsonthesubjectfromrelevantsectorsandexpertsaswellasthecommunityatlarge.

2.24 Inthecourseofourinvestigation,weoftendiscussourpreliminaryfindingswithseniorofficersoftheorganisationunderinvestigation.Suchexchangesareusefulinclarifyingpointsofdoubtandfurtheringinsightintotheissues.

Implementation of Recommendations2.25 Inallourreports,whetheroncomplaintinvestigationorDI,ourrecommendationstotheorganisationconcernedaimtomakeformoreopenandclient-orientedservice,transparentandaccountableadministration,moreefficientprocessesandeffectivepractices.Thesemayevenincludecommentsonpoliciesorlegislationfoundoutdatedorinequitable.

2.26 Headsoforganisationshaveanobligationtoreportatregularintervalstheirprogressofimplementationofourrecommendations.Wecertainlyalsoconsideritourdutytomonitorthesame.

Secrecy Requirement and Publication of Reports2.27 TheOmbudsman,staffandAdvisersareallboundbylaw,under penalty of a fine and imprisonment, to maintain secrecy on allmattersthatcometoourknowledgeintheexerciseandexecutionofourfunctions.

2.28 Inthisconnection,itisourgeneralpracticenottorespondtoanyquestionfromthirdpartiesonindividualcomplaints.However,where it is in the public interest to do so, The Ombudsman may publishatmediaconferencesDIreportsandanonymisedreportson complaint investigation, or otherwise answer media enquiries on such investigations, again hiding names and other personal data.

2.29 WealsoplaceallourDIreportsonourwebpageforpublicreference.

Essence of Our Investigation2.30 Ourobjectininvestigationistoestablishthefactsand,whereappropriate,enhancethequalityofpublicadministration.Wedonotconductwitch-huntorcriticiseregardless.Weinquirewithoutfearorfavour,biasorprejudice.Weaimforfairandimpartialconclusionofallcases.


Chapter3PerformanceandResults

Performance and Results

Enquiries and Complaints Processing3.1 Thenumberofcomplaintsreceivedthisyearpickedupagain,reachingthefigureof5,501,or5,263ifsecondarycases1 in topical complaints(seepara. 3.4)werediscounted,boththehighestinthepastfiveyears.Thenumberofenquiriesmaintainedatarelativelystablelevel,slightlyover1,000permonth.

Fig.3.1

Enquiries and Complaints Received

Year Enquiries

Complaints

TotalExcluding topical

complaints

2008/09 14,005 5,386 4,533

2009/10 13,789 4,803 4,410

2010/11 12,227 5,339 4,712

2011/12 12,545 5,029 4,849

2012/13 12,255 5,501 5,263

Chapter

3

3.2 Togetherwith848casesbroughtforwardfromlastyear,wehadatotalof6,349complaintsforprocessingthisyear.

3.3 Abreakdownonthenumberofenquiriesandcomplaintsreceivedandprocessed in the past five years is given in Table 1.

Topical Complaints

3.4 Topicalcomplaints(seepara. 2.4inChapter2)continuedtofeatureinthecomplaintsreceived,with238secondarycasesthisyear,comprisingabout4.3%ofallcomplaintsreceived.Thelargestgroupoftopicalcomplaints(with114secondarycases)arosefromtheAgricultural,FisheriesandConservationDepartment’smeasurestodealwithstraycats,includingitsdecisiontocharge$11forclaimingbackastraycatbyitsowner,adecisionwhichtheDepartmentquicklywithdrewshortlyaftercommencementofourinquiryintothecomplaint.Thenextlargestlotofcomplaints(with63secondarycases)camefromagroupofdetaineesinadetentioncentreclaimingill-treatment.Thesecasescouldnotbe further pursued because the complainants either disclaimed to have lodged a complaintorweredischargedandbecameuntraceablesubsequently.Anothergroup(with36secondarycases)concernedtheuseofsimplifiedChinesecharactersincertaindecorativelightings.Wedidnotinquireintothesecomplaintsasthematterhadbeenresolvedbeforeouraction.

Mode of Lodging Complaints

3.5 Emailremainedthemostcommonchannelusedinlodgingcomplaints,accountingfor2,144(39%)ofallthecomplaintsreceived.Nevertheless,personalcontact,eitherbyface-to-faceinterviewortelephone,wasstillanimportantmode:769complaints(14%)werelodgedinpersonand675(12%)bytelephone.Figuresin the past five years are given in Fig. 3.2.

Fig.3.2

Mode of Lodging Complaints

Mode 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

In person 370 413 634 573 769

Inwriting–

by complaint form 1,300 863 544 518 621

by letter through post 936 870 882 947 752

byfax 890 764 766 657 540

by email 1,515 1,362 1,954 1,783 2,144

Bytelephone 375 531 559 551 675

TOTAL 5,386 4,803 5,339 5,029 5,501

Complaints Handled

3.6 Wecompletedprocessing85.1%ofallcasesreceivedduringtheyearplusthosebroughtforwardfromlastyear.Ofthe5,401caseswhichwecompletedprocessing,wepursued2,285,whiletherestwerenon-pursuable(seeFig. 3.3).Amongthosepursued,2,094(91.6%)wereconcludedbywayofinquiry,169(7.4%)byfullinvestigationand22(1%)bymediation.

1 For counting purposes, each group of topical complaints is recognised by a “leader case” and the rest are taken as “secondary cases”.



3.7 Thenon-pursuablecasesincludedthosethatwecouldnotinvestigateduetorestrictionsbylaworjurisdictionallimitation(seeChapter 1)andthosethatwerewithdrawn by the complainant or discontinuedbyusafterinitialinquiry.Therewere also cases not undertaken because further inquiry is considered unnecessary for the following reasons: • aprima facie case of maladministraton is not established; • thecomplainantismerelyexpressingopinionsorseekingassistance; • thecomplainanthasrefusedtoconsenttodisclosureofpersonaldata,

necessary for our inquiries; • theorganisationconcernedistaking,orhasalreadytaken,actiononthe

matter; or • thereisanotherauthorityforthematter.

Fig.3.3

Complaints Processed in 2012/13

Cases Processed Percentage

CasesNotPursuable 3,116 57.7%

CasesPursuedandConcluded

2,285 42.3%

Total 5,401 100%

3.8 Therelativelyhighpercentageofnon-pursuablecasesreceivedthisyearwaspartlyattributabletoover600complaintsfromafewcomplainantswholodgedwith our Office repeated complaints against the same departments on trivial matters.Mostturnedouttobenon-pursuable.Apartfromthese,the100oddcases of two groups of topical complaints, namely, those from the Immigration CentredetaineesandthoseconcerningsimplifiedChinesecharactersondecorativelightings also could not be pursued for the reasons mentioned in para. 3.4.

Major Causes for Complaint3.9 Basedontheallegationsmadebythecomplainants,thetopfivecausesforcomplaint were: • error,wrongdecisionoradvice(30.4%); • delay(14.6%); • ineffectivecontrol(10.7%); • staffattitude(6.8%);and • lackofresponsetocomplainants(6.5%).

Thetopthreecauseswerethesameaslastyear.MoredetailsaregiveninTable 3.

3.10 Basedonfullinvestigationsintocases,thetopfiveformsofmaladministrationsubstantiated or partially substantiated were: • error,wrongadviceordecision(30.7%); • delayorinaction(17.7%); • ineffectivecontrol(16.1%); • failuretofollowprocedures(8.9%);and • lackofresponse/replytocomplainantorenquirer(8.9%).

MoredetailsaregiveninTable 8.

Most Popular Targets of Complaint3.11 Thetopfourorganisationsintheleagueofthe“topten”organisationsmostfrequently complained against based on the number of complaints we received (excludingthosenotpursuable)werethesameaslastyear,includingtheirranking.The fifth to the ninth organisations in the league last year also remained in the league,thoughwithslightchangesintheirranking.TheAgricultural,FisheriesandConservationDepartment,notintheleaguelastyear,cametothefifthpositionthisyear,with115topicalcomplaintsagainstit(seepara. 3.4).Detailsoftheleagueare given in Table 6.

Outcome of Investigations and Inquiries3.12 Weconcluded169complaintsbyfullinvestigation,with94(55.6%)substantiated, partially substantiated or substantiated other than alleged.Theoutcome of our full investigations is summarised in Fig. 3.4.

Fig.3.4

Substantiation Rates of Complaints Concluded by Full Investigation

Classification No. of Complaints Percentage

Substantiated 32 18.9%

Partiallysubstantiated 55 32.6%

Substantiatedotherthanalleged

7 4.1%

Unsubstantiated 75 44.4%

Inconclusive 0 0.0%

Total 169 100.0%

3.13 Ofthe2,094inquirycasesconcluded,inadequaciesordeficiencieswerefoundin671(32.0%).Wewouldsuggestimprovementmeasureswheredue,whetherornotinadequaciesordeficiencieswerefound.Table 9givesthedetails.

Direct Investigation3.14 Wecompletedsixdirectinvestigationsduringtheyear.Thesubjectsstudiedcoveredtheadministrationoftemporaryclosureofmeteredparkingspacesduringroadworks,thebookinganduseofGovernmentsportsfacilities, the administration of Government policy on private recreational leases,conveyanceofpatientsbyambulanceto“areahospitals”,recoveryofmortgagedefaultdebtsundertheHomeOwnershipAssistanceschemesandenforcementagainstillegalextensionsbyfoodestablishments.Fourdirectinvestigationswereinprogressattheendoftheyear.

3.15 Wecompleted47directinvestigationassessmentsthisyear.MostofthemwererelatedtoactionstakenbytheLandsDepartmentandBuildingsDepartmentinresponsetoreportsofillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandandillegalstructures.Otherissuesstudiedcoveredthemanagementofpubliccemeteriesandillegalburials,parkingfacilitiesformotorcyclesforpersonswithdisabilities,weatherforecastsbytheHongKongObservatoryandtheregulationofgastubings.

3.16 Alistofthedirectinvestigationsandselecteddirectinvestigationassessmentscompleted is in Annex 5.



Recommendations3.17 Oncompletionof169fullinvestigationswemade161recommendations.Wealsomade56recommendationsaftersixdirectinvestigations.Amongthistotalof217recommendations,192(88.5%)ofthemhavebeenacceptedbytheorganisationsforimplementationand25(11.5%)werestillunderconsiderationasat31March2013.

3.18 Forinquirycases,wemadeatotalof73suggestionsforimprovementonconclusionofourinquiriesintheyear.Abreakdown,bytargetorganisations,ofthe number of suggestions made is in Table 9.

Our Performance3.19OurperformancepledgesandrecordofachievementarelistedinAnnex 12.Wecontinuedtomeetourpledgesfullyinrespectofansweringenquiriesbytelephoneandinpersonandinarrangingtalks.Forenquiriesinwriting,weanswered86.8%oftheminfiveworkingdaysand12.1%insixtotenworkingdays,comparedtolastyear’sfiguresof78.0%and22.0%.

3.20Oncomplainthandling,weacknowledged98.9%ofallcomplaintsreceivedwithinfiveworkingdaysbutexceededthepledgedtimeframein1.1%ofthecases.Forprocessingcasesoutsidejurisdictionorunderrestriction,weexceededthetargettimeframeof15workingdaysin1.8%ofthecases,comparedwith1.5%lastyear(seeFig. 3.5(a)).

3.21 Weconcluded86.3%ofthecaseswithinthreemonths,comparedwith79.3%lastyear.Sameasinthepasttwoyears,therewere0.9%ofthecasesnotconcludedwithinourpledgetimeframeofsixmonths(seeFig. 3.5(b)).Thiswaslargely attributable to factors not within our control but affecting our inquiries, such ascomplexityofthecaseandnewdevelopmentsmid-streamoftheprocess.

Fig.3.5

(a) Processing Time for Cases Outside Jurisdiction or Under Restriction

Year

Response Time

Within10 working days(target : >70%)

Within11-15 working days

(target : <30%)

More than15 working days

2008/09 77.2% 19.6% 3.2%

2009/10 78.9% 16.3% 4.8%

2010/11 83.4% 14.5% 2.1%

2011/12 89.2% 9.3% 1.5%

2012/13 89.5% 8.7% 1.8%

Fig.3.5

(b) Processing Time for Other Cases Concluded

Year

Response Time

Less than3 months

(target : >60%)

Within3-6 months

(target : <40%)

More than6 months

2008/09 65.9% 32.3% 1.8%

2009/10 54.7% 43.2% 2.1%

2010/11 74.5% 24.6% 0.9%

2011/12 79.3% 19.8% 0.9%

2012/13 86.3% 12.8% 0.9%

Overview3.22 Thenumberofcomplaintsreceivedthisyearreachedarecordhigh,thoughquiteanumberofthemwerenotpursuableforvariousreasons.Whilesomenon-pursuabletopicalcomplaintswereacontributingfactor,thefewcomplainantswho sent in numerous trivial complaints almost on a daily basis also added to the numberofnon-pursuablecases.

3.23 Theyearalsosawahighernumberofcomplaintsconcludedbywayof full investigation, which found wrong decision, delay and ineffective controltobethemostcommonformsofmaladministration.Thesecoincidedwiththemajorcausesforcomplaint.Ourfullinvestigationsand direct investigations generated more recommendations to organisationsthisyear.Theabovewereachievedwithoutsacrificingourabilitytofulfillourperformancepledge–over86%ofourinquiryandinvestigation cases were completed within three months, against a pledge ofnolessthan60%.Wecontinuedoureffortsinmediatingsuitablecase,withencouragingresults.

3.24 Wewillendeavourtomaintainahighlevelofefficiencyaswellasthoroughnessofourcomplainthandlingworkintheyeartocome.


Chapter4RewardandChallenge

Enhancing Quality Administration 4.1Animportantaspectofourcomplainthandlingworkistomakerecommendations to the organisations under complaint with an aim of improvingtheirqualityofadministration.Mostofourrecommendationsareacceptedbytheorganisations(seeparas. 3.17 and 3.18inChapter3). Wemonitortheiractionperiodicallyuntiltheyhaveimplementedourrecommendations.Duringtheyearunderreport,themeasuresintroducedbyorganisations in implementing our recommendations fell broadly into the following categories:

(a) guidelinesforclarity,consistencyorefficiencyinoperation;

(b) betterarrangementsforinter-departmentalcoordination;

(c) measuresforbetterpublicenquiry/complainthandling;

(d) measuresforbetterclientservices;

(e) measuresformoreeffectiveregulationorcontrol;

(f) clearerandmorereasonablerules;

(g) clearerandmoretimelyinformationtothepublic;and

(h) trainingforstaff.

4.2 SpecificexamplesaregiveninAnnex 10.Measuresforbetterclientservices,enhanced guidelines for staff and clearer and more timely information for the public werethecategorieswheremostrecommendationsweremade.

Mediating Disputes 4.3 Ourefforttoresolvecomplaintsinsuitablecaseswithoutresortingtoinquiryorinvestigationcontinuedthisyearwithencouragingresults.Atotalof12Governmentdepartments/agenciesvoluntarilyparticipatedinmediation,thoughattimes requiring some initial persuasion, and successfully reached agreement with thecomplainantsin22cases.Thesecasesconcernedalargevarietyofmatters,such as water seepage, applications for compensation, rules in a marathon race, remarkingofpublicexaminationpapers,demolitionofadisusedunauthorised

Reward and Challenge

bridge, provision of lighting in public housing estates and better postal delivery service.

4.4 Mostofthesuccessfulcaseswereconductedbyface-to-facemediationmeetings,thoughtelephonemediationwasalsoadoptedinsomesimplecases.Bothcomplainantsandorganisationswhichhadparticipatedinmediationgenerallyconsideredtheprocessworthwhile.Ourofficerswhohadactedasmediatorsalsogainedmuchsatisfactioninbringingaboutawin-winsolutioninthesecases.Someorganisationsexpressedthattheywouldactivelyconsiderresolvingsuitablecomplaintsbymediationinfuture.

Transparent Government and Access to Information4.5 AsnotedinChapter1(para. 1.5),ourOfficeisconferredwiththedutyandpowertohandlecomplaintsaboutbreachesoftheCodeonAccesstoInformation.ThisyearthenumberofcomplaintsreceivedrelatingtotheCodeincreasedsignificantly,fromlastyear’s35to59thisyear.Thefiguresforthepastfiveyearsare shown in Fig. 4.1 below:

Fig.4.1

Number of Code-related Complaints in the Past Five Years

Year No. of Complaints Received

2008/09 24

2009/10 46*

2010/11 42*

2011/12 35

2012/13 59

* The figures in 2009/10 and 2010/11 each include 3 cases not recognised as such complaints in the year when they were received but so classified on conclusion in the subsequent year.

4.6 Weconcluded49Codecasesduringtheyear,withfaultsordefectivehandlingofrequestsforinformationfoundin20ofthem.Amajorfaultfoundwasunreasonable refusal to provide information, wholly or partly, mostly for a wrong reasonbutitwasnotrarethatnoreasonwasgivenatall.Whereawrongreasonwasgiven,oftenitinvolvedaninaptclaimtoprotecttheprivacyofpersonaldata.Proceduraldefectswerealsoidentifiedinsomecases,suchaslateprovisionoftheinformation requested and failure to inform the requesters of appeal channels in accordancewiththeCodewhentheirrequestswereturneddown.

Identifying and Tackling Systemic IssuesLack of Determination to Deal with Long-standing Problems

4.7 Wecommentedinlastyear’sreportonGovernment’slackofdeterminationtotackleperennialproblemssuchasshop-frontextension.Anothergroupoflong-standingproblemsconcernillegaloccupationofGovernmentland.Inacomplaint case handled during the year, a piece of Government land had been occupiedforvariousactivities,includingillegalparking,hawkinganddryingofclothes.Anumberofdepartmentshadattemptedtotackletheissuebut,withvariousexcuses,theproblemremainedunresolvedfor30years,untilafterwehadinvestigatedacomplaintfromacitizen.

Chapter

4



4.8 AnotherexamplewasthemanyloopholesinthebookingsystemforsportsfacilitiesmanagedbytheLeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment.Thesedefectshadbeenthesubjectofcontinuedcomplaints,bothtotheDepartmentandtoourOffice.Nocomprehensivereviewhadbeenconductedtodealwiththeproblemsuntilwecommencedadirectinvestigationintothesubject.Weconsideritessentialthat departments and organisations should be sensitive to emerging new issues and nip the problems in the bud rather than procrastinating action until the problems havegrownandtakenroot.

4.9 Nevertheless,wearepleasedtonotethatinbothcasesmentionedabovetheAdministrationrespondedpositivelytoourrecommendationsandquicklyintroducedeffectivemeasurestoresolvetheproblems.

Failure to Keep Proper Records

4.10 Inanumberofcaseswehandled,wenoticedthatsomedepartments/organisationswerelaxinkeepingproperrecords.Inallthesecases,thedepartments/organisationsconcernedclaimedtohavesentareplytothecomplainantorhavekeptthecomplainantinformedofprogressofthehandlingofhiscase,butourinquiriescouldfindnorecordofsuchactionhavingbeentaken.Weconsiderthismalpracticeareflectionofthelackofsenseofaccountabilityonthepartofthedepartmentsandorganisationsconcerned.

Issues Examined by Direct Investigations4.11 Apartfromidentifyingsystemicissuesfromourcomplaintcasehandlingorfrom other sources, such as the media, we may also conduct direct investigations to lookintotheissuesmoredeeplyorfromabroaderperspective.Asmentionedinpara. 3.14ofChapter3,wecompletedsixdirectinvestigationsthisyear.

4.12 Fromacomplaintcasewenoticedthatsomemeteredparkingspacesclosedtemporarilyforroadworksbypublicutilitieshadbeenclosedforanunnecessarilylongtime,becausetheworkshadcommencedlateandendedearly,resultinginawasteofpublicfacilities.Weconductedadirectinvestigationonthissubjectandfound that there was no monitoring of the actual commencement or completion of roadworksrequiringtemporaryclosureofmeteredparkingspaces.Thiswasteofpublic facilities was particularly serious where the duration of closure approved was overlygenerous.Werecommendedaseriesofmeasurestotightenthecriteriaforapproving closures, the monitoring of the commencement and completion of the roadworksrequiringtheclosuresandthepenaltyforbreaches.

4.13 Thedirectinvestigationmentionedinpara. 4.8 above was a response to the numerouscomplaintsreceivedregardingthebookinganduseofGovernmentsportsfacilities.Themajorcomplaintsincludedtouting,difficultyinbookingbyindividualsandorganisationsandthewastageofvenuefacilitiescausedbyno-showofusers.Wefoundthat,althoughexcessindemandforsportsfacilitiesmightbeanunderlyingcauseforthecomplaints,deficienciesinthebookingsystemandexecutionhadfuelledmalpractices.Werecommendedaseriesofmeasurestotacklesuchdeficiencies,inareassuchasthelongadvancebookingperiodsforindividualsandorganisations,thetimegapbetweentelephonebookingandpayment,thelaxenforcementofidentityverification,thelackofpenaltyforno-showbyindividualsorlatecancellationbyorganisations,thefree“stand-by”arrangement,andthelackoftransparencyoftheblockbookingarrangements.Inthe course of the investigation, we benefited greatly from views and comments received from members of the public in response to our declaration of commencementoftheinvestigation.TheformulationofourrecommendationswasalsoaresultofthoroughdiscussionswiththeLeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment.

4.14WestartedourdirectinvestigationintotheadministrationofGovernmentpolicyonprivaterecreationalleaseswhentheHomeAffairsBureau(“HAB”)wasnegotiatingwithmanysportsclubsregardingtherenewaloftheirleases.Ingranting leases to the sports clubs at nil or nominal rents, Government required the clubstomakeavailabletheirfacilitiesforusebynon-membereligiblebodies,albeitonlyonalimitedscale.However,wefoundHAB’smonitoringandpublicityinthisrespectquiteinadequate.WerecommendedHABtoincreaseaccessibilityofthesports clubs’ facilities to eligible bodies, strengthen publicity of the availability of such facilities, monitor compliance more closely and enhance the related complaint handlingmechanism.OnHAB’sundertakingtoconductacomprehensivereviewon the policy of granting leases to sports clubs at nil or nominal rents, we urged it totakethisonboardassoonaspossible,withwidepublicconsultation.

4.15 OurinvestigationintothearrangementoftheFireServicesDepartmentandtheHospitalAuthorityforambulancementotakepatients,includingthoseincriticalcondition(e.g.patientssufferingcardiacorrespiratoryarrest),tohospitalsaccordingtotheir“catchmentareas”aimtoaddressconcernsaboutthedelaycausedbytheruleandtheseriousconsequencesthatmightresult.Theinvestigationrevealedthat, while the current system had its rationale and could basically remain unchanged, special arrangements should be made to identify patients in critical conditionandtakethemtothenearesthospitalintermsoftraveltimesoastomeettheirmosturgentneedtoreceivemedicaltreatment.Wefurtherrecommended proper training for the frontline ambulancemen and regular review ofthearrangement.

4.16 ThedirectinvestigationintoHousingDepartment’s(“HD”)arrangementsforrecoveryofmortgagedefaultdebtsundertheHomeOwnershipAssistance(“HOA”)schemeswastriggeredbyacomplaintlodgedwithus.BeingthemortgagedefaultguarantorforpropertiessoldundertheHOAschemes,theHongKongHousingAuthority(“HKHA”)hadtosettlemortgagedefaultclaimswithbanks.Thetotalamountwassubstantial.AsHKHA’sexecutivearm,HDhadthedutytochasethedefaultex-ownersforrecoveryofthedebtsbutdidnotdosofor18yearssincethefirstclaimhadbeensettledin1991.ApartfromrevealingthisoversightofHD,ourinvestigationalsofoundthat,evenafterthesettingupofamechanismin2009fordebtrecovery,HD’sprogresshadbeenunsatisfactoryanditsproceduresdefective.WerecommendedtheDepartmentto review its operational and monitoring arrangements, strengthen training for its staffandexpeditetheprocess.

4.17 WealsolookedintotheregulatorymeasuresagainstillegalextensionofbusinessareabyrestaurantsoftheFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment(“FEHD”)andLandsDepartment(“LandsD”).WefoundFEHD’sdeploymentofonlyhealthinspectorsbutnothawkercontrolofficersintacklingtheproblemanunder-utilisationofitsfrontlineresources,itsover-emphasisonthefrequencyofinspections and prosecutions but not the long term deterrent effect of its enforcementactionsinappropriate,andthecumbersomethree-tierappealmechanismandtheexerciseofdiscretionbyFEHDtowithholdimplementingthesuspensionorcancellationoflicencesundertheDemeritPointsSystempronetoabuse.WealsofoundLandsD,asthelandadministrator,tohavefailedtouseitspowerstocontaintheproblem.WerecommendedFEHDtoactivelyexplorethebest use of its resources, to conduct targeted raids on recalcitrant offenders, to simplifytheappealmechanismtotwo-tier,andLandsDtoactivelyuseitspowerstosupportFEHDwhenrequired.Wealsorecommendeddesignationofspotsforregularised alfresco dining and to facilitate applications from restaurant operators forsettingupoutsideseatingaccommodationatthosespots.



Challenges from PartiesRe-assessment of Cases

4.18 AsexplainedinChapter 2,ourAssessmentTeamexaminesallincomingcomplaintsanddetermineswhethertheycomewithinourjurisdiction.Casesarescreened out if they fall outside our jurisdiction, or for which we are restricted by law toinvestigate,orthatareotherwiseinappropriateforustopursue.Complainantsdisagreeingwithourdecisionmayrequesttohavetheircasesre-assessed.

4.19 Duringtheyearwereceived374requestsforre-assessment,with119subsequentlyre-openedforinquiry.

Review of Cases

4.20 Forcasesconcludedafterwehaveexaminedtheissuesundercomplaint,complainantsdissatisfiedwithourfindingsorconclusionsmayseekareview.Suchrequestswillbeconsideredaccordingtolaiddownprocedures.Ifitisconsideredjustified,areviewwillbeconducted.

4.21 Thisyearwereceived88requestsforreview,with40declinedand48reviewsconducted.Ivariedmydecisioninthreecasesafterreviewandupheldmyoriginaldecisionfortheremaining45,asshowninFig. 4.2.

Fig.4.2

All Review Cases

New evidence

New perspective Outside

jurisdictionTotal

Yes No Yes No

Decisionvaried 2 - 1 - - 3

Decisionupheld - 44 - - 1 45

48

Judicial Review and Litigation

4.22 Acomplainantnotsatisfiedwithmydecisionmay,apartfromrequestingareviewbyme,seekajudicialreviewbythecourt.

4.23 Acomplainanthadapplied,in2010,forleavetoapplyforjudicialreviewagainst my decision not to continue our inquiry into his complaint against a Government department for his failure to give his consent, despite repeated reminders,forustotransferhispersonaldatatotheDepartmentforthepurposeoftheinquiry.LeavewasrefusedbytheHighCourtinOctober2010.ThecomplainantwasseekingleaveoftheCourtofAppealtoappealagainsttheHighCourtdecision.

4.24 TheSmallClaimsTribunalcasementionedinmyreportlastyearlodgedbyacomplainantagainstourOfficeasaco-defendantwasheardinApril2012.TheclaimwasstruckoutwithcosttoourOffice.Duringtheyear,therewasalsoaclaimlodgedwiththeSmallClaimsTribunalbyanothercomplainantagainstourOfficefornottakinguphiscomplaint.ThecasewasstruckoutinthefirsthearinginSeptember2012withcosttoourOffice.

Challenging Complainant Behaviours

4.25 Fromtimetotimeweencounterchallengingcomplainantbehavioursinthecourseofourwork.Theyrangefromillegiblewritingtopersistentlylabouringonapointthathadbeenrepeatedlyclarified,fromusingbadlanguagetoexhibitingphysicalthreats,andfromcallingupfrequentlytocheckprogresstoswampinguswithdailycomplaints.Weunderstandthistobeacommonfeatureofanycomplainthandlingworkanddealwithitprofessionally,remindingourselvesconstantlythateachcomplaintshouldbeassessedobjectivelyregardingitsmerits.Atthesametimewearemindfuloftheneedtodeployourresourceseffectivelyforbetterserviceforthepublicandrespondtothechallengessensibly.Weprovidesuitabletrainingtoourstaffsoastoequipthemwiththenecessaryknowledge andskills.

Resistance to Our Inquiries

4.26 WeexperiencedmisunderstandingofourworkbyindividualGovernmentofficersinsomeofourinquiries.Oftentheyconsideredthe complaint as unjustified and hence our inquiry as creating unnecessaryworkforthem.Wehadtoexplaintothemthat,beinganimpartialinvestigator,wecannotpre-judgewhetheranallegationissubstantiatedornotbeforeweknowallthefactsandhencetheneedforinquiry.Itisourinsistenceonobjectivityandimpartialitythatwe may win public confidence on the fairness of our findings, even whereweconcludeacomplaintasunsubstantiated.

Overview4.27 HelpingGovernmentdepartmentsandorganisationsimprovethequalityandefficiency of their operation and standard of service as well as their response to citizens’ demands and queries is an important object of our complaint handling work.Weachievethisbymakingrecommendationsonconclusionofourinvestigationsand,equallyimportantly,byfollowingthroughtheirimplementation.DuringtheyearwesawmanygoodmeasuresintroducedbyvariousGovernmentdepartmentsandorganisationsasaresultofourrecommendations.

4.28 Ourdirectinvestigationscontinuedtobeanimportantvehicletoaddresssystemic problems in public administration revealed by the complaint cases we handledorbythemedia.WearepleasedthatGovernmenttakesourfindingsseriouslyandgenerallyacceptsourrecommendations.Meanwhile,therewasanoticeable increase in number of complaints lodged concerning public access to information.ItshowedaheightenedpublicawarenessoftheirrightsinthisrespectandwehopetheAdministrationwillrespondpositivelytothistrend.

4.29 Wewillcontinuouslyenhanceourabilityinourinvestigativeworkandprofessionalism in complaint handling and promote mediation as a means to resolve suitablecases.

Reason

Result


Chapter5OfficeAdministration

Staffing5.1Duringtheyear,weretitledthe“ComplaintsOfficerGrade”to“InvestigationOfficerGrade”tobetterreflectthejobnatureofourinvestigationofficers.Wecontinuedtoimplementathree-prongedstrategytobuildupahealthycontingentofinvestigationofficers.Asinthepreviousyear,werecruitedgraduateswithnoorlittleworkingexperienceattheentryrankofAssistantInvestigationOfficer,offeringthemearlynurturingandacareerpath.Wealsorecruitedpeoplewithpublicsectorexperiencedirectlytothemoreseniorranks.Thishasenabledustotapexperiencefrompeopleofdifferentpublicadministrationbackgrounds,andbroadentheoutlookofthegrade.Toallowmoreflexibilityinmanpowerdeployment,wecontinuedtosupplementourregularworkforcewithtemporaryinvestigationofficerswhohadrichexperienceinpublicadministration.Thishashelpedustideover temporary shortfall in investigative manpower and cope with fluctuations in caseload.

5.2 Atotalof12investigationstaff(oneatChiefInvestigationOfficerlevel,twoatSeniorInvestigationOfficerlevel,fiveatInvestigationOfficerlevelandfouratAssistantInvestigationOfficerlevel)wereappointed.OurorganisationchartisinAnnex 14.

Fig.5.1

Staff Complement

Breakdown of staffAs at

31.3.2011As at

31.3.2012As at

31.3.2013

Directorate 4 4 4

Investigation 54 55 60

Administrative&support 48 49 47

Total regular staff 106 108 111

Temporary investigation staff: equivalence to full-timeposts(totalstaff-days)

5.1(1,351)

5.1(1,356)

3.9(1,032)

Grand total 111.1 113.1 114.9

Office Administration

Fig.5.2Careerexhibitions

Chapter

5

5.3Throughouroutreachactivities,wecontinuedtointroducecareeropportunities in our Office to members of the public, particularly university students.WeparticipatedincareerexhibitionsorganisedbytheChineseUniversityofHongKong,theUniversityofHongKongandtheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTechnologyinJanuaryandMarch2013,andtheEducationandCareersExpoheldattheHongKongConventionandExhibitionCentreinJanuaryandFebruary2013.Wewereencouragedbythepositivefeedbacktotheseinitiatives,whichalsoservedtoenhancepublicunderstandingofourmissionandtheworkofourinvestigationofficers.

Staff Training5.4 Weattachedutmostimportancetoequippingandenrichingourstaffwithprofessionalknowledgeandskillsfortheefficientandeffectivedischargeoftheirduties, and to cope with the changing social environment and the increasingly challengingnatureofcomplainthandling.

5.5 Tofacilitatetheintegrationofournewrecruitsintothenewworkingenvironmentandenablethemtobefullyoperationalasquicklyas practicable, we conducted an induction programme for them, covering differentaspectsofworkofaninvestigator.

5.6 Aworkshopwasconductedforourinvestigationofficersontechniques in handling difficult situations in their daily dealings with complainantsthroughinteractiverole-play.Anotherworkshopwasorganisedtokeepourstaffabreastofthelatesttrendandtechniquesinpubliccommunication,focusingonpresentationskillsandinteractionwiththemedia.

5.7 Topromotetheuseofmediationinresolvingcomplaints,weprovidedsponsorship for investigation staff to attend more elaborate training and attain accreditationasmediators.

Fig.5.3Workshoponhandlingdifficultsituations

Fig.5.4Workshoponpresentationskills


Chapter5OfficeAdministration

5.8TenofficersattendedtheInternationalOmbudsmanInstituteRegionalTrainingProgrammeheldinHongKongandMacaotoenhancetheirexposuretobestpracticesincomplainthandlingindifferentjurisdictions.

Revamp of Information Technology Systems

5.9Withtheadvanceininformationtechnology,theOfficehasplannedtoupgradeourcomputersystemforthehandlingandmanagementofcomplaints.Thiswouldleadtoamoreefficientworkflowandlessuseofpaper.

Complaints against the Office

5.10 Thisyear,weconcludedatotalof23complaintslodgedagainststaff:theirmanners,ourworkpracticesandproceduresorboth.Twoofthecomplaintsagainstourstaffwerefound“substantiated”.Wetreasuredthelessonslearnedandprovidedappropriatestaffcounsellingtotheofficersconcerned.

5.11 Generallyspeaking,complaintsagainstourstaffoftenarosefromdissatisfaction with our conclusions and decisions on their cases against Governmentdepartmentsandpublicorganisations.Nevertheless,wetakecomplaints most seriously as each complaint provides us with an opportunity to reviewourworksystemsandpractices.Wearealwaysreadytoimprovetheservicestothecommunity.

Fig.5.6

Complaints against the Office concluded in 2012/13

Nature Substantiated Unsubstantiated

Staffmanner(e.g.delay,negligence, abuse of power, unacceptablebehaviour)

2 17

Workpracticesandprocedures - 2

Bothstaffmannerandworkpractices and procedures

- 2

Total 23

Fig.5.5IOIRegionalTrainingProgramme


Chapter6PublicityandExternalRelations

6.1 Topromotefairnessandefficiencyinpublicadministration,weputgreatemphasisonenhancingpublicawarenessandengagingdifferentstakeholders.Throughout the year, we publicised the ombudsman’s system by a wide range of activities.

Public Education and PromotionPublicity Campaign

6.2 WerolledoutabrandnewTVcommercialfromOctobertoNovember2012,withthetag-line“Weidentifymistakeandurgeforpromptcorrection”.Byasimpledeviceofhighlightpen,theTVcommercialillustratedtheroleofTheOmbudsmaninexposingvariousadministrativeerrorsinanofficesetting.Itwasbroadcastinlocaltelevision,publictransportandonlineTVchannels.

6.3Thepublicitycampaignalsoincludedprintadvertisementondifferentfreedailiesandbusstationshelters.

Roving Exhibition

6.4ToreinforcetheeffectoftheTVcommercial,weorganisedaseriesofrovingexhibitionsataroundthesametime.Wesetupexhibitionpanelsin11locations across the territory, including Government offices, shopping malls

andMTRstations.Over12,000membersofthepublicvisitedtheboothsandreceivedoursouvenirsandpublicityleaflets.

Publicity and External Relations

Fig.6.2TVCommercial

-Weidentifymistakesand urge for prompt

correction

Fig.6.3Rovingexhibition

Fig.6.4Printadvertisement-“Weidentifymistakesandurgeforpromptcorrection”

Fig.6.1Posteradvertisementinbusstation shelter

Chapter

6



Press Conferences and Media Releases

6.5 Massmediaisbyfarthemosteffectivemeanstodisseminatesignificantinformationandcapturepublicattention.Duringtheyear,weorganisedthreepress conferences, announcing the results of three anonymised complaint investigationreportsandfivedirectinvestigationreports.Wealsodeclaredtheinitiationoftwodirectinvestigations.Thepublicannouncementsdrewwidemediacoverage.

Fig.6.6

Press Conferences/Public Announcements

31May2012

•Announcementoffindingsofdirectinvestigationon:i.Grantingofshorttermtenanciesatnominalrent ii. Effectivenessofadministrationoftemporaryclosureof

meteredparkingspacesduringroadworkscarriedoutbypublic utilities

• Announcementoffindingsofanonymisedinvestigationintocomplaint against three Government departments for failing tocurbtheunauthorisedactivitiesofahawkerstall

19September2012

• Announcementoffindingsofdirectinvestigationon: i. BookinganduseofsportsfacilitiesofLeisureandCultural

ServicesDepartment ii. AdministrationofGovernmentpolicyonprivate

recreational leases

18October2012

• DeclarationofdirectinvestigationintoTransportDepartmentmechanism for monitoring the frequencies of franchised bus services

4January2013

• Declarationofdirectinvestigationintoaccesstoinformationand records management in Hong Kong

10January2013

• Announcementoffindingsofdirectinvestigationonconveyanceofpatientsbyambulanceto“AreaHospitals”

• Announcementoffindingsofanonymisedinvestigationinto: i. ComplaintagainstSocialWelfareDepartmentfor

unreasonablenessinitsassessmentoftheincomeofCSSArecipients

ii. ComplaintagainstthreeGovernmentdepartmentsforfailing to properly handle unlawful occupation of Government land

Talk for Departments and Organisations

6.6 WeconductedsixoutreachtalkstoGovernmentdepartmentsandorganisationsduringtheyear,includingtheOfficeofthePrivacyCommissionerforPersonalData,theSocialWelfareDepartment,thePostOffice,theFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment,theUniversityofHongKongandtheHongKongJiangsuExchangePromotionAssociation.Thesewerevaluableoccasionsforpublicofficerstodeepentheirunderstandingonourwork.

Youth Education

6.7 Youngpeoplearefutureleadersofthesociety.Weactivelylookforopportunitiestopubliciseourworktotheyoungergeneration.Duringtheyear, wereceivedvisitsfromstudentsoftwosecondaryschools.WealsotookpartintheEducationandCareersExpo2013organisedbytheHongKongTradeDevelopmentCouncil.Over4,000people,mainlyteenagers,visitedourboothandlearntaboutourworkandcareeropportunities.

Online Promotion

6.8 Wecontinuedtowidenourreachthroughdifferentonlinechannels.WegeneratedaQuickResponseCode(“QRcode”)tofacilitateefficientaccesstoourwebsitethroughsmartphones.Wehavealsosetupafacebookfanpagetoprovidenewsfeedtothepublic. Allpublicityvideosandonlinegamesareaccessiblethroughthefanpage(www.facebook.com/Ombudsman.HK).

Working with Professionals, Community Leaders, etc.Advisers and JPs

6.9 OurAdvisersandJusticesofthePeace(“JPs”)undertheJPsAssistanceSchemeplayanimportantroleinofferingprofessionalsupporttoourOffice.

6.10 InOctober2012,weorganisedaseminaronspecialgroundsforpublicrentalhousingandrehousing.Ontheoccasion,ourAdvisersandJPsenjoyedafruitfulandconstructiveexchangeofviewswiththespeakersfromGovernmentdepartmentsandorganisations.

Legislative Councillors

6.11 Everyyear,ImeetwithMembersoftheLegislativeCounciltoupdatethemonourwork.Themeetingofthisyeartookplaceon18December2012,whenwediscussedissuesofmutualandpublicconcern.

The Ombudsman’s Awards

6.12 IpresentTheOmbudsman’sAwardsannuallytopublicorganisationsandofficers to recognise their efforts in fostering efficient administration and adopting positiveattitudetowardscomplainthandling.Over200guestsattendedthisyear’spresentationceremony,whichwasheldon31October2012.TheSocialWelfareDepartmentwontheGrandAward.TheHongKongMonetaryAuthorityandtheWaterSuppliesDepartmentweretheothertwowinningorganisations,whereas41officersgottheindividualawards.

Fig.6.5Pressconference

Fig.6.7TalkforGovernmentdepartment

Fig.6.8EducationandCareersExpo

Fig.6.9Fanpage

Fig.6.10Seminaronspecialgroundsforpublic rental housing and rehousing

Fig.6.11TheOmbudsman’sAwardspresentationceremony



Fig.6.12

Winning Organisations for 2012

SocialWelfareDepartment-GrandAward

HongKongMonetaryAuthority

WaterSuppliesDepartment

Fig.6.13

Individual Awards for 2012

Organisation No. of Awardees

AirportAuthority 1

BuildingsDepartment 2

CivilEngineeringandDevelopmentDepartment 3

ConsumerCouncil 1

CorrectionalServicesDepartment 1

CustomsandExciseDepartment 1

DepartmentofHealth 1

DrainageServicesDepartment 2

EducationBureau 1

EfficiencyUnit 1

EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment 1

FireServicesDepartment 1

FoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment 1

HighwaysDepartment 2

HomeAffairsDepartment 2

HongKongExaminationsandAssessmentAuthority 2

HospitalAuthority 2

ImmigrationDepartment 2

InlandRevenueDepartment 2

Judiciary 1

LandRegistry 1

LandsDepartment 1

LegalAidDepartment 1

MandatoryProvidentFundSchemesAuthority 2

MarineDepartment 1

OfficeofthePrivacyCommissionerforPersonalData 1

SocialWelfareDepartment 1

StudentFinancialAssistanceAgency 2

WaterSuppliesDepartment 1

Overseas and Mainland Liaison6.13 Imaintainclosecontactswithombudsmaninstitutionsworldwide.InJuneandNovember2012, IattendedtheAsianOmbudsmanAssociationBoardMeetinginAzerbaijanandtheInternationalOmbudsmanInstitute(“IOI”)WorldConferenceandBoardofDirectorsMeetinginNewZealandrespectively.Thesecooperativenetworkskeptusuptodateondevelopmentoftheombudsmansystemaroundtheworld.

6.14 InMay2012,myOfficehostedtheIOIMid-termBoardofDirectorsMeetinginHongKong.Wealsoco-organisedtheIOIRegionalTrainingonComplaintManagementwiththeCommissionAgainstCorruption(“CCAC”)ofMacao.Thethree-daytrainingandexchangeenabledparticipantstowidentheirexposureanddeepentheirinsightsoncomplaintmanagement.

6.15 TheDeputyOmbudsmanledateamofsixmemberstovisittheDepartmentofSupervisioninShandong,ChinainSeptember2012.Through meetings and visits to their public service units, the delegation gainedgreaterexposuretothemonitoringsystematprovinciallevel.

6.16 InFebruary2013,IvisitedtheCCAC,Macaowithmycolleagues. The visit deepened our understanding on their case profile and mode of investigation.

6.17 Throughouttheyear,variousmainlandandoverseasdelegationsvisitedourOffice.Theseofferedgoodopportunitiesforustopromoteourworkandunderstandaboutthefunctionsofotherinstitutions.Thelistofvisitors is at Annex 16.

Looking Ahead6.18 Wearecommittedinpublicisingourworktoreachoutvarioussectorsofthecommunity.Tostepupourcampaignthisyear,wearecollaboratingwiththeRadioTelevision Hong Kong to produce a television programme with eight episodes, to be broadcastinsummer2013.Thisinitiativeaimsatfurthereducatingthepubliconourfunctionsandjurisdiction.Inaddition,wehaveembarkedonaprojectfortherevamp of the Office website to facilitate convenient access to our website information.Wewillcontinueoureffortsinreachingouttothepublicbydifferentcreativemeans.

Fig.6.14TheIOIRegionalTrainingonComplaintManagement

Fig.6.15VisittoShandong,China


Annexes


Complaint

Acomplaintisaspecificallegationofwrongdoing,unreasonableactionordefectivedecisionwhichaffectsandaggrievesthecomplainant.

Complaint Not Undertaken

This is a complaint which The Ombudsman has decided not to process further after consideringallitscircumstances,e.g.whetherthereissufficientprima facie evidenceofmaladministration.

Direct Investigation (“DI”)

This is an investigation initiated in the public interest even in the absence of complaint andgenerallyonmattersofasystemicnatureorwidecommunityconcern.

Direct Investigation Assessment

Thisreferstothepreliminaryexaminationandassessmentonapotentialsubjectfordirectinvestigation.Whereourdirectinvestigationassessmentfindsnosignificantmaladministration or the organisation concerned has made proactive improvement, wewillnotinitiateadirectinvestigation.Wewillconcludeourstudyandofferourfindingstotheorganisation.Whereappropriate,wemakerecommendationsforimprovement.

Discontinuation of Complaint

This is the cessation of inquiries into a complaint for reasons such as insufficient informationorevidencefromcomplainantsandlackofcomplainants’consentforaccesstotheirpersonaldata.

Enquiry

Anenquiryisarequestforinformationoradvice.

Full Investigation

Thisreferstoanin-depthinquiry,usuallyintocomplexorseriouscomplaintsandusuallywithrecommendationsforimprovementorremedyuponconclusion.

Inconclusive

This is a situation where, at the end of a full investigation, The Ombudsman is not prepared to draw any conclusion on a complaint because the evidence is conflicting, irreconcilable,incompleteoruncorroborated.

Inquiry

Forgeneralcomplaintcases,wemayusethisproceduretoresolvecomplaintsmorespeedily.Weasktheorganisationundercomplainttorespondtousand,ifweseefit,thecomplainantinparallel.Wewillexaminesuchresponse,thecomplainant’sview on it, if applicable, together with any other relevant information or evidence wehavecollected.Wewill,inconclusion,presentourfindingstothecomplainantandmakesuggestionstotheorganisationforremedyorimprovementwherenecessary.Wheredeeperandfullerprobingisneededbeforewecanconcludethecase,wewillstartafullinvestigation.

Investigation

This may be a full investigation into a complaint or a direct investigation without a complaint.

Maladministration

ThisisdefinedinTheOmbudsmanOrdinance.Itbasically means poor, inefficient or improper administration including unreasonable conduct; abuse of power or authority; unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory proceduresanddelay;discourtesyandlackofconsiderationforaperson.

Mediation

This is a voluntary process carried out where the complainant and the organisation under complaint agree to meet to discuss the complaintandtoexploremutuallyacceptablesolutions.InvestigatorsfromthisOfficeactasimpartialfacilitators.

Outside Jurisdiction

This refers to the situation where the action or organisation subject to complaint is notwithinTheOmbudsman’sjurisdictionunderTheOmbudsmanOrdinance.

Restrictions on Investigation

ThesearetherestrictionsoninvestigationunderTheOmbudsmanOrdinance.

Substantiated other than Alleged

This is where a complainant’s allegations are unsubstantiated but The Ombudsman discovers other aspects of significant maladministration and comments on those otherdeficiencies.

Substantiated, Partially Substantiated and Unsubstantiated

These reflect the varying degrees of culpability of an organisation under complaint onconclusionofafullinvestigation.

Topical Complaints

Thesearecomplaintsonaparticularsocialortopicalissue.Theyareessentiallyagainstthesameactionordecisionbytheorganisationundercomplaint.

Withdrawal of Complaint

Thisisacomplainant’svoluntarywithdrawalofacomplaint.However,dependingonthenatureorgravityoftheallegations,TheOmbudsmanmaystillpursuethecase.

Glossary of TermsAnnex

1

Annex1 Glossary of Terms


List of Scheduled Organisations

Circumstances Where Complaints are not Followed up or Investigated

Organisations Listed in Part I of Schedule 1, Cap. 397

1. AllGovernmentdepartments/agenciesexcepttheHongKongAuxiliaryPoliceForce,theHongKongPoliceForce,theIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption,andtheSecretariatofthePublicServiceCommission

2. AirportAuthority3. AuxiliaryMedicalService4. CivilAidService5. ConsumerCouncil6. EmployeesRetrainingBoard7. EqualOpportunitiesCommission8. EstateAgentsAuthority9. FinancialReportingCouncil10. HongKongArtsDevelopmentCouncil11. HongKongExaminationsandAssessmentAuthority12. HongKongHousingAuthority13. HongKongHousingSociety14. HongKongMonetaryAuthority15. HongKongSportsInstituteLimited16. HospitalAuthority17. Kowloon-CantonRailwayCorporation18. LegislativeCouncilSecretariat19. MandatoryProvidentFundSchemesAuthority20. OfficeofthePrivacyCommissionerforPersonalData21. SecuritiesandFuturesCommission22. UrbanRenewalAuthority23. VocationalTrainingCouncil24. WestKowloonCulturalDistrictAuthority

Organisations Listed in Part II of Schedule 1, Cap. 397

1. HongKongAuxiliaryPoliceForce2. HongKongPoliceForce3. IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption4. SecretariatofthePublicServiceCommission

Actions not Subject to Investigation - Schedule 2, Cap. 397

1. Security,defenceorinternationalrelations2. Legalproceedingsorprosecutiondecisions3. Exerciseofpowerstopardoncriminals4. Contractualorothercommercialtransactions5. Personnelmatters6. Grantofhonours,awardsorprivilegesbyGovernment7. ActionsbytheChiefExecutivepersonally8. Impositionorvariationofconditionsoflandgrant9. ActionsinrelationtoHongKongCodesonTakeoversandMergersandShare

Repurchases10. CrimepreventionandinvestigationactionsbyHongKongPoliceForceor

IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption

Restrictions on Investigation of Complaints - section 10(1), Cap. 397

1. Complainanthavingknowledgeofsubjectofcomplaintformorethantwoyears2. Complaintmadeanonymously3. Complainantnotidentifiableortraceable4. Complaintnotmadebypersonaggrievedorsuitablerepresentative5. SubjectofcomplaintandcomplainanthavingnoconnectionwithHongKong6. Statutoryrightofappealorremedybywayoflegalproceedings(exceptjudicial

review)beingavailabletocomplainant

Circumstances Where The Ombudsman may Decide not to Investigate - section 10(2), Cap. 397

1. Investigationofsimilarcomplaintsbeforerevealednomaladministration2. Subjectofcomplaintistrivial3. Complaintisfrivolousorvexatiousorisnotmadeingoodfaith4. Investigationis,foranyotherreason,unnecessary

Annex

2Annex

3


Receive complaint

In person By phone

Close case

MED INQ INV

Inquire and examine

response/findings

Inquire and examine findings

Handle by INQ/INV

Seek mutual consent and

mediate

Seek and examine comments from

organisation

Inform complainant

request rejected

ResolvedSufficient

information

Complaint to others copied to

Ombudsman

Inform complainantof decision

Issue MED results/ INQ findings/INV report to

complainant and organisation

Monitor implementation of recommendations

Complaint to Ombudsman

Monitor development

Receive request for

re-assessment

Receive request

for review

In writing (by post/fax/email)

Assessment team to screen Investigation teams to process

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Complaintpursuable

Supported by material facts or

arguments

Flow Chart on Handling of a Complaint

Annex

4

Legend:

INQ - Inquiry

INV - FullInvestigation

MED- Mediation

Index of Direct Investigations and Selected Direct Investigation Assessments Completed

Annex

5

Direct Investigations

OMB/DI/221 BookingandUseofSportsFacilitiesofLeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment

OMB/DI/223EffectivenessofAdministrationofTemporaryClosureofMeteredParkingSpacesduringRoadWorksCarriedoutbyPublicUtilities

OMB/DI/231RegulatoryMeasuresandEnforcementActionsagainstIllegalExtensionofBusinessAreabyRestaurants

OMB/DI/243 ConveyanceofPatientsbyAmbulanceto“AreaHospitals”

OMB/DI/269 AdministrationofGovernmentPolicyonPrivateRecreationalLeases

OMB/DI/274 RecoveryofMortgageDefaultDebts

Direct Investigation Assessments (Selected)

OMB/DI/261 IllegalBurialsatPublicCemeteriesandtheirVicinity

OMB/DI/266 ProcessingofApplicationsforBuildingMaintenanceSubsidy

OMB/DI/276 AssessmentofPremiumforHomeOwnershipSchemeFlats

OMB/DI/279 ParkingFacilitiesforMotorCyclistswithDisabilities

OMB/DI/285BuildingsDepartment’sEnforcementActionagainstUnauthorisedBuildingWorksin aBuilding

OMB/DI/289 WeatherForecastsbyHongKongObservatory

OMB/DI/296 RegulationofGasTubings

OMB/DI/297 PedestrianFlashingGreenCountdownDisplay

OMB/DI/299 MonitoringofConstructionandBuildingMaterialsbyArchitecturalServicesDepartment

OMB/DI/302 LandsDepartment’sEnforcementofTreePreservationClausesinLandLeaseofanEstate


Summaries of Direct Investigations Completed

Annex

6

Fire Services Department (“FSD”) and Hospital Authority (“HA”)

CaseNo.OMB/DI/243–

ConveyanceofPatientsby

Ambulanceto“AreaHospitals”

(Investigationdeclaredon17

May2012andcompletedon

21December2012)

Background

AmbulanceserviceforconveyingpatientstohospitalsforemergencytreatmentistheresponsibilityofFSD.FSDandHAhadagreedtodividetheterritoryinto20areas(hereinaftercalled“catchmentareas”).Exceptinspecialcircumstances1,FSDambulancesinvariablytookpatientstothedesignatedhospitalsorclinicswithinthehospitalcatchmentareas(hereinaftercalled“areahospitals”)wherethepatientswerelocated.

2. Nevertheless,anareahospitalmightnotbethehospitalnearesttothelocationofapatient.Thefixedruleforambulancestotakepatientseven“incriticalcondition”2 toareahospitalsmightresultindelayedtreatmentandhenceseriousconsequences.

3. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmaninitiatedadirectinvestigationtoexaminetheinadequaciesofthisconveyancearrangement.

Our Findings

Rationale for Conveyance to Area Hospital

4. AccordingtoFSDandHA,thearrangementofconveyingpatientstoareahospitalswasmadewiththe“bestinterests”ofpatientsinmind.Thescale,equipmentandintakecapacityofthehospitals,ratherthantraveldistanceandtraveltime,werethemainfactorsforconsideration.

Area Hospital Not Necessarily the Nearest Hospital

5. Westudiedthe22complaintcasesreceivedbyFSDoverthepastthreeyearsaswellastheDepartment’sdocumentaryexchangeswithHAconcerningtheirreviewoftheserviceboundariesofcatchmentareas.Wefoundexamples,onHongKongIsland,inKowloonaswellasintheNewTerritories,whichshowedthattheareahospitalmightnotbethenearesthospital.Inonecase,thetraveltimetotheareahospitalwassome10minuteslongerthantothenearesthospital.

Expert Opinions

6. Ourmedicaladvisersandthemedicalassociation,medicalpractitionersandpatients’ organisation that we consulted all held that patients in critical condition shouldbetakentothenearesthospitalsfortreatmentassoonaspossibletopreventfatalresults.

Our Comments and Recommendations

7. Undertheestablishedsystem,ambulancemenweremerelyrequiredtofollowsomesimplepre-setinstructionsincarryingouttheirdutiesandtakepatientstotheareahospital.Theydidnotneedtomakealotofjudgementonthepatient’scondition.

8. However,takingpatientstotheareahospitalratherthanthenearesthospitalmightresultinseveralminutes’delay.Whilesuchdelaymightnotmakemuchdifference to most patients, it could be a matter of life and death for those in criticalcondition.

9. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanurgedFSDandHAto:

(1)allowforspecialarrangementswhilekeepingtheestablishedsystem:where the area hospital is not the nearest hospital, patients in critical conditionshouldbetakentothenearesthospital;

(2) providepropertraininganddrawupclearguidelinesforambulancemen,including a definition of patients in critical condition, to facilitate implementationofthemeasurein(1)above;and

(3) setuparegularreviewmechanismandmaintaincontactwithvariousstakeholders(includingambulancemen),soastograduallyintroducethemeasuresin(1)and(2)above.

10. FSDandHAgenerallyacceptedtheaboverecommendations.Theyagreedtostartwithcasesof“cardiacarrest”and“respiratoryarrest”,whicharemoreeasilyidentifiable.Asambulancemenacquiredmoreexperienceand/orweregiventhenecessarydiagnosticequipment,FSDwouldextendthespecialarrangementtoincludemoretypesofcriticalconditionandallowsuchpatientstobetakentothenearesthospitalaswell.

11. WeappreciatedthedifficultiesfacedbyambulancemenandwerenotopposedtotheincrementalapproachsuggestedbyFSDandHA.Nevertheless,criticalconditionisnotlimitedtothetwotypes.TheOmbudsmanurgedFSDandHAtoconduct regular reviews and strive to provide ambulancemen with the necessary equipment, training and guidelines so that ultimately all patients in critical condition wouldbetakentothenearesthospitalforemergencytreatmentasfaraspracticable.

Annex6 SummariesofDirectInvestigationsCompleted

1 Specialcircumstancesinclude:patientshaving“severetrauma”orinvolvedin“large-scaleaccidents”.

2 Examplesare:cardiacarrestandseriousrespiratorydistress.


Background

Alfrescodiningoutsidethelicensedboundaryofrestaurantsoftenleadstostreetobstruction, causes environmental hygiene and noise problems, and brings nuisance toupstairsandnearbyresidents.FEHD,thelicensingauthority,hadfailedtoeffectivelycurborcontaintheproblem,despiteitsenforcementactions.LandsDhadalsoseldomtakenenforcementactionsagainstillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandbyrestaurants,althoughitisresponsibleforlandadministration.

Our Findings

2. Ourfindingswereasfollows.

Inefficient Use of Resources by FEHD

3. FEHD’senforcementactionsagainstrestaurants,includingprosecutionsforillegalextensionofbusinessarea,weremainlycarriedoutbyitsHealthInspectors(“HIs”).Incertaindistricts,HawkerControlOfficers(“HCOs”)alsoparticipatedinenforcementoperations,buttheyjustplayedasupportingrole.ThismeantthatFEHDhadnotfullyutilisedthelawenforcementpowerofitsfrontlinestaffandhadnotmadegooduseofitsresources.Indeed,restaurantssellingcookedfoodonGovernmentlandwerenodifferentfromunlicenseditineranthawkerssellingsnacksonpavements.Bothwereinessenceillegalhawkingactivitiesonthestreet.HCOshadthestatutorypoweranddutytotakeenforcementactionagainstthem.Also,theshiftdutyhoursofHCOs(7amto11pm,sevendaysaweek)weremuchlongerthanthenormalworkinghoursofHIs(8:30amto6pm,MondaytoFriday).HCOscouldeffectivelysupplementHI’seffortsintacklingtheproblematnightwhenillegalextensionofbusinessareabyrestaurantswasespeciallyrampant.

FEHD’s Lack of Determination and Objectives

4. FEHDwasapparentlyconcernedonlyaboutitsfrequencyofinspectionsandnumberofprosecutions.Ithadnotsetobjectivesandformulatedenforcementstrategies.Itdidnotdealwithrecalcitrantoffenderswithgreaterdeterminationand increased frequency of operations, nor did it change its mode of operation for moreeffectiveenforcementactions.

5. Moreover,FEHDusuallyonlyprosecutedrestaurantswithillegalextensionofbusiness area, without arresting the culprits on the spot and seizing the articles involved.Consequently,itsenforcementactionslackeddeterrenteffect.

6. Furthermore,FEHDcouldhaveappliedforclosureordersfromtheCourtagainstunlicensedrestaurantswithillegalextensionofbusinessarea,butithadneverusedthat“trumpcard”.ThishadsignificantlyweakenedFEHD’spowerofenforcement.

Cumbersome Three-tier Appeal Mechanism under the Demerit Points System

7. Arestaurantlicenseecontraveningthefoodorhygienestipulationsundertherelevantlegislationwouldbeliabletoprosecutionandfineduponconviction.FEHDwouldalsoregisterdemeritpointsagainstthelicenseeunderitsDemeritPointsSystem.Accumulationtoacertainnumberofdemeritpointsmightresultinsuspensionorcancellationoftherestaurantlicence.However,anyrestaurantlicensee dissatisfied with a decision of licence suspension or cancellation might appealtoFEHD,theLicensingAppealsBoardandeventuallytheMunicipalServicesAppealsBoard.TakingadvantageofthelengthyappealprocessandFEHD’sdiscretion to suspend the implementation of the decision, the licensee concerned coulddefertheeffectivedateoflicencesuspensionorcancellation.Therestaurantcould carry on its business despite the continuing offence, sometimes for more than 300days.

Narrow Coverage of “Non-standard Requirements” in Provisional Licence

8. Forfoodpremiseslocatedinblackspotswhereillegalextensionofbusinessarea was rampant and for those with multiple previous convictions for illegal extensionofbusinessarea,FEHDwouldimpose“non-standardrequirements”intheir provisional licences, prohibiting the licensees from encroaching on Governmentlandorcommonpassagewaysoutsidetheirpremises.FEHDwouldonly issue a provisional licence after confirming that the restaurant concerned had notbeenprosecutedforany“streetobstruction”offenceduringthe14-day“observationperiod”priortoitsdeclarationofcompliancewiththelicensingrequirements.Weconsideredthatthecoverageoftheabovemeasureshouldbeextendedtoallprovisionallicenceapplicationsandthe“observationperiod”shouldbelengthenedtoenhancethedeterrenteffect.

Lenient Licensing System

9. Underthecurrentlicensingsystem,apersonwhoserestaurantlicencehadbeen suspended or cancelled could still apply for a new licence afterwards without any restrictions, irrespective of whether that involved the same premises or the samerestaurantname.FEHDdidnotdulyconsiderwhethertheapplicantwasa“fitandproperperson”tobecomealicensee.Wefoundsuchalicensingsystemtoolenient.

Lands D’s Inadequate Efforts to Curb Illegal Occupation of Government Land by Restaurants

10. WhileadmittingthatillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandbyrestaurantswasanissuewithinitspurview,LandsDheldthatbeforeinstitutinganyprosecution,itmust first post a notice under the relevant legislation, ordering the occupation of Government land to cease before a specified deadline, and if the occupant compliedatfirstbutsubsequentlyoccupiedthelandagain,theDepartmentwouldhavetopostanewnoticeratherthanjustinvokingthefirstnoticeforimmediateenforcementaction.

11. Wenotedthatthenoticeactuallyorderstheoccupantto“ceaseoccupation”oftheland,notjustto“temporarilyremove”thearticlesoccupyingtheland.Accordingly,anynoticepostedshouldremainvaliduntiltheoccupationsubstantivelyceases.TherewasnoreasonwhyLandsDcouldnotrelyonthenoticetoclearorconfiscateanyarticlesplacedonthelandandinstituteprosecution.

12. AstheadministratorofGovernmentland,LandsDhasanundeniableresponsibilitytocontroltheoccupationofGovernmentlandbyrestaurants.Indeed,where a restaurant applied for setting up an alfresco dining area in a public place, FEHD’sapprovalfortheapplicationwassubjecttoLandsD’sgrantofalandtenancy.Itwas,therefore,inconceivablethatLandsDdidnotactivelytakeenforcementactionagainstillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandbyrestaurants.

Need to Promote Legitimate Alfresco Dining

13. RestaurantlicenseesmightapplytoFEHDforsettingupalfrescodiningareasoutsidetheirpremises,butthenumberofsuccessfulapplicationshadbeensmall.WeconsideredthattheAdministrationshouldencouragemorealfrescodiningareastobesetupinalegitimateandregularisedmanner.Thatwouldnotonlybring more convenience to restaurant operators and customers, but would also reducethepressureonFEHDintakingenforcementactions.FEHDwouldthenbeabletoconcentrateitsresourcesontacklingthosecasescausingseriousenvironmentalnuisance.


Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) and Lands Department (“Lands D”)


RegulatoryMeasuresand

EnforcementActionsagainst

IllegalExtensionofBusiness

AreabyRestaurants


February2012andcompleted

on28March2013)


Recommendations

14. TheOmbudsmanmadeatotalof17recommendationstoFEHDandLandsD,which included:

FEHD

(1) toactivelyexplorethebestuseofexistingresourcesandrelevantlegislation,andtoconsidersettingupataskforcecomprisingHIsandHCOs,deployingmoremanpowerandusingdiversestrategiestodealwith unauthorised food operations in public places; meanwhile, to at least allowHCOsmoreparticipationindealingwiththeproblem;

(2) toconducttargetedraidsonrecalcitrantoffenders,takingmorefrequentenforcementactionsagainstthem,makingarrestsandseizureofarticles,bringingmoreprosecutions,applyingforclosureordersfromtheCourtand publicising information about those restaurants;

(3) toconsideramendingtherelevantlegislationtosimplifythemechanismforappealagainstsuspensionorcancellationoflicencesfromthree-tiertotwo-tier;exceptunderveryspecialcircumstances,torefrainfromwithholding the suspension or cancellation of licences pending appeals by restaurant licensees;

(4) toconsiderextendingtheapplicabilityof“non-standardlicensingrequirements”toallpremisesunderapplicationforrestaurantlicences,andtolengthenthe“observationperiod”beforetheissuanceofprovisional licence;

(5) inrespectofanapplicantwithhis/herrestaurantlicencepreviouslycancelled due to repeated offences, to refuse to process, for a specified periodoftime,his/herapplicationforanyrestaurantorrelatedlicenceinrelation to the same premises; to consider, in the long term, how to restrict applications from recalcitrant offenders for restaurant or related licences in relation to any premises;

(6) tosuggesttoDistrictCouncilsthedesignationofspotsforalfrescodiningin suitable areas, and to facilitate applications from restaurant operators for setting up outside seating accommodation at those spots; and

Lands D

(7) tostudywiththeDepartmentofJusticehowtomoreeffectivelyexercisestatutory powers to deal with illegal occupation of Government land by restaurants,infulfilmentofitsresponsibilityaslandadministrator.

Background

Formanyyears,inordertomeettheshortageofrecreationalandsportsfacilitiesinHong Kong, Government has granted land at nil or nominal rent to some organisationstoestablishandoperatesportsclubs.Suchorganisationscompriseprivate bodies committed to promoting sports development and providing recreational facilities, social welfare organisations, uniformed groups, national and districtsportsassociationsandcivilservantsassociations.GrantsaremadeunderPrivateRecreationalLeases(“PRLs”).Asatthetimeofourinvestigation,therewerealtogether73PRLsthusgranted.

2. PRLsweregenerallygrantedforatermof15years.Asat30June2012,55ofthe73PRLshadexpired.Mostofthesportsclubsconcernedhadappliedforrenewaloftheirleases.

3. HABisresponsibleforadministeringtheabovepolicyofgrantinglandbywayofPRLs(“PRLpolicy”).

Our Findings

Opening Hours Grossly Deficient

4. ThePRLpolicyandleaseconditionsstipulatethatallsportsclubsshall,attherequestoftherespective“competentauthorities”3, open parts of their sports facilitiesforuseby“eligiblebodies”4.

5. Formerly,theleaseconditionsrequiredthesportsclubstoopentheirsportsfacilitiestoeligiblebodiesfornomorethanthreesessionseachweek,eachsessionnotexceedingthreehours.Therewasnominimumrequirement.Giventhatthesports clubs are granted land at nil or nominal rent, such limited scale of opening wasnotcommensuratewiththepublicsubsidytheyenjoyed.

Ineffective Monitoring

6. BeforeJuly2010,HABhadnotlaiddownanycriteriaorprocedureswiththeother competent authorities for vetting applications from eligible bodies to use the facilitiesofthesportsclubs.NorhadtheBureaurequiredthesportsclubstoreportregularlyontheuseoftheirfacilitiesbyeligiblebodies.HAB’spasteffortsinmonitoringtheenforcementoftheleaseconditionswereclearlyinadequate.

Lack of Publicity

7. Exceptforremindingtheothercompetentauthoritiesin2001,2010and2011to inform eligible bodies that they might apply for using the sports facilities of the sportsclubs,HABhadnotcarriedoutanypublicityorpromotionontheopeningofsuchsportsfacilities.Withsuchmeagrepublicity,itwasnowonderthatuptothetime of completion of our investigation, no eligible body had ever applied to the competentauthoritiesforusingthesportsfacilities.

Arrangements for Opening Facilities Still Inadequate in Renewed Leases

8. Undertherenewedleases,allthesportsclubsarerequiredtoopentheirsportsfacilitiestoeligiblebodiesforatleast50hourspermonthwithnoupperlimit.Nevertheless,thatfigureactuallymeanstheaggregatetotalofthehoursofopeningofallthesportsfacilitiesofasportclub.

Annex6 SummariesofDirectInvestigationsCompletedAnnex6 SummariesofDirectInvestigationsCompleted

Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”)


AdministrationofGovernment

PolicyonPrivateRecreational

Leases


May2012andcompletedon

27August2012)

3 “Competentauthorities”includeHAB,theEducationBureau(“EDB”),theSocialWelfareDepartment(“SWD”),theLeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment(“LCSD”)andtheCivilServiceBureau(“CSB”).

4 “Eligiblebodies”includeschoolsasdefinedintheEducationOrdinance,socialandwelfareorganisationsreceivingsubventionfromSWD,nationalsportsassociationseligibleforsubventionfromLCSD,Governmentdepartments,andyouthanduniformedgroupsreceivingsubventionfromHAB.Theircorresponding“competentauthorities”areEDB,SWD,LCSD,CSBandHABrespectively.


9. Inourview,ifallormostofthesportsclubsjustmeetthisbareminimum,itwould be difficult to convince the public that the clubs’ repayment to society matchesthepublicresourcesthattheyenjoy.Furthermore,giventhedifferentscalesofoperationofthesportsclubs(somehaveonlyafewsportsfacilities,whileothersmayhavetenormore),HAB’sacross-the-boardrequirementforthemtoopentheirfacilitiesfornotlessthan50hoursmightconstitutedisparityoftreatment.

10. Fortunately,thenewleasesalsostipulatethatthesportsclubsmusteachsetoutaSchemetoImplementtheGreaterAccessRequirements(“theScheme”),givingdetailsregardingtheopeningoftheirsportsfacilities(includingtheavailablefacilities,andtheirnumbersofhoursandsessionsofopening)forHAB’sapproval.Inaddition,HABhasthepowertorevisethecontentoftheSchemeatanytimeduringthenewlease.ThesetwoprovisionsservetoempowerHABtoacertainextenttourgethesportsclubstomakesucharrangementsforopeningtheirfacilitiesastobemoreinaccordwithpublicexpectations.

No Proper Mechanism for Complaint Handling

11. Incaseeligiblebodieshaveanycomplaintsaboutaccesstothesportsfacilitiesof the sports clubs, the relevant competent authorities have all along handled such complaintsbywayof“consultationandcoordination”.Ifthecompetentauthoritiescouldnotresolvethedisputes,HABwouldinterveneandstartaninvestigation.However,HABdoesnothavethepowertooverridethedecisionsoftheothercompetentauthorities.

12. WeconsiderthatHABshoulddevelopapropermechanismforhandlingcomplaintsconcerningtheopeningofthesportsfacilitiesofthesportsclubs.Thereshouldalsobeclearstipulationastowhohastheauthoritytomakethefinaldecisionincaseofdisputes.

Recommendations

13. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatHAB:

(1) fullytakeintoaccountpublicinterestswhenvettingandrevisingtheSchemesofthesportsclubs,suchthattheywouldmaketheirsportsfacilities as readily accessible as possible in proportion to their scales of operation to meet the needs of eligible bodies;

(2) stepuppublicityontheopeningofthesportsfacilitiesofthesportsclubs;

(3) implementwithvigouritsmeasurestomonitorthesportsclubs’compliancewiththeleaseconditionsandtheSchemes,includingthesettingupofanelectronicdatabase,frequentrandomchecksandimmediate actions to rectify inadequacies where necessary;

(4) enhancethemechanismforhandlingcomplaintsregardingtheopeningof sports facilities and, in particular, stipulate clearly who has the authority tomakethefinaldecisionincaseofdisputes;and

(5) embarkonacomprehensivepolicyreviewassoonaspossible,involvingwidepublicconsultation.

14. HABacceptedtheaboverecommendations.

Introduction

ItisthepolicyoftheHongKongHousingAuthority(“HKHA”)toissuemortgagedefault(“MD”)guaranteesforpropertiessoldundertheHomeOwnershipAssistance(“HOA”)schemes5 in order to secure favourable borrowing terms from thebanksforthebuyers.Whereapropertyownerdefaultsonthemortgage,thebankmayforeclosetheproperty,andwheretheproceedsofsaleisinsufficienttocovertheoutstandingloan,thebankmaymakeaclaimtotheHousingDepartment(“HD”),theexecutivearmofHKHA,fortheshortfall.AftersettlingtheMDclaim,HKHAisentitledtosubrogatethebank’srightstotheloan.HD,asexecutivearmofHKHA,willhaveboththerightandthedutytochasetheex-ownerfortherecoveryoftheshortfall.

2. Throughacomplaintcase,itcametoourknowledgethatalthoughHDhadbeensettlingMDclaimssince1991,itonlystartedchasingex-ownersfortheMDdebts18yearslaterin2009.

3. Againstthisbackground,weinitiatedadirectinvestigationtoexaminethemagnitudeoftheproblemandwhethertherewasroomforimprovementinHD’sdebtrecoveryarrangements.

Our Findings

4. OurinvestigationshowedthatHDhadnorecordofanythoughtordiscussionbeinggiventotheneedtorecovertheseMDdebtsbefore2009.

5. In2009anHDinternalauditonHOAunitsundertheSecondaryMarketSchemerevealedthatHDhadincurred$230Mon826casesofMDclaimsundertheScheme,andrecommendedthatHDshouldsetupamechanismtoreviewtherecoverabilityoftheMDdebtsandtakechasingactionwhereappropriate.

6. InpursuanceofthisrecommendationHDsetuparrangementsfortherecoveryofMDdebtsinlate2009.AlthoughtherecommendationwasmadeinrespectofSecondaryMarketSchemeunits,HDinfactprovidedMDguaranteesforallHOAunits.Therefore,HDextendeditsrecoveryactiontoallHOAunits.

7. UptoendJune2012,HDhadincurredatotalof$973Mon4,407casesofMDclaims.Aftertwoandahalfyears’ofrecoveryaction,theamountofdebtrecoveredwasabout$3.4M,or0.3%ofthetotal.Thepositionofthe4,407casesatendJune2012wasasfollows:

• 1,360cases(31%)wereexcludedfromthereview,beingtime-barredorinvolvingdischargedbankruptcy;

• 901cases(20%)had1stroundreviewcompleted;

• 1,398cases(32%)wereintheprocessof1stroundreview;and

• theremaining748cases(17%)werepending1stroundreview.

Housing Department (“HD”)


RecoveryofMortgageDefault

Debts


March2012andcompletedon

20March2013)

5 TheHOAschemesareschemesunderwhichHKHAprovidessubsidisedhomeownershipflatstoqualifiedpersons.HOAschemesincludeHomeOwnershipScheme,TenantPurchaseScheme,PrivateSectorParticipationSchemeandSecondaryMarketScheme.



Observations

8. TheMDdebtsarepublicmoneyand$973Misnotasmallamount.ForaslongasHKHA’spolicyofprovidingMDguaranteesforHOAbuyerscontinues,HKHAwillbesubjecttothepotentialliabilityofmoreMDclaimsandaccumulatingmoreMDdebts.HDneedstohaveapropersystemtomanagetherecoveryoftheMDdebts,both for financial management reasons and to avoid giving the community the wrongmessagethatdebtsowedtotheGovernmentneednotberepaid.

9. HD’soversightandfailuretotakeanydebtrecoveryactionfor18yearsafteracquiringtherighttotheMDdebtsisunacceptable.Besides,evenafterthesettingupofamechanismin2009fordebtrecovery,progresshasbeenunsatisfactoryandsomeofthearrangementsputinplaceareinefficientandineffective.

Recommendations

10. HDshould:

Overall

(1) drawlessonsfromthisexperienceandadoptamorealertandvigilantapproach in managing public money in future;

Debt Recovery Arrangements

(2) reviewitsoperationalarrangementstoensurethattheappropriateorderofpriorityisfollowedinhandlingthecasework.Itshouldconsider,among other things, whether efforts should continue to be made to pursuetime-barredanddeceased-debtorcases,takingintoaccounttheeffectivenessofsuchefforts,theresourcesavailable,andtheexistingcasebacklog;

(3) reviewitsworkflowwithaviewtostreamliningtheprocedures,payingparticular attention to, among other things, whether its arrangements for searchingaddressesareefficientandwhethertheMDteamcanbegivenaccess to use more interview rooms;

(4) reviewcarefullyitsguidelinesandstrengthentrainingforitsstaff;

(5) exerciseduecareanddiligenceinhandlingtheMDdebtcasesandenhance monitoring of staff performance; and

(6) useitsbesteffortstomeetitstargetofcompleting1stroundreviewofall4,407casesbyyear2015/16,bystaffredeploymentoranyothermeans.

11. OurrecommendationsweregenerallyacceptedbyHD.

Background

OfthecomplaintswereceivedaboutLCSDsportsfacilities,mostofthemconcerneddifficultiesinbooking,unfairallocationofquotasbetweenindividualsandorganisationsandunauthorisedtransferofpermits(apracticecommonlyknownas“touting”).Inthisconnection,TheOmbudsmaninitiatedadirectinvestigationintothearrangementsregardingthebookingandallocationofLCSDsportsfacilitieswithaviewtoidentifyingareasforimprovement.

Our Findings

2. Shortageofsportsfacilitieswastheunderlyingcauseforbookingdifficultyandtheemergenceoftoutingactivities.Inthefaceofsuchshortage,LCSDisexpectedtostrikeabalanceamongthemultiplegoalsofpromotingsportsforallwhileraising the standard of elite sports, and providing convenient services to the public whilecurbingtoutingactivities.Thisisnotaneasytask.

3. Ourdirectinvestigationrevealedthatapartfromtheimbalancebetweendemandandsupply,deficienciesinLCSD’sbookingsystemanditsexecutionhadfurtheraggravatedthedifficultiesinbookingandtheproblemofunauthorisedtransferofpermits.

Observations and Recommendations

4. Theprevalenceoftoutingactivitiescouldbeattributedtodeficienciesinthebookingsystemaswellasinadequaciesinexecution.Theyprovidedmanyopportunitiesfortouting.Deficienciesinthesystemincluded:

• individualbookingcouldbemade30daysinadvance,allowingtoutsampletimetofind“buyers”;

• themaximumnumberofhoursallowedforindividualbookingwastoogenerous;

• individualscouldusedifferentidentitydocumentstocircumventthelimitsonbookings;

• abuseofsystembytoutswaseasybecauseimmediatepaymentwasnotrequired for telephone reservations by individuals;

• thedefinitionoforganisationsthatcouldenjoythree-monthprioritybookingrightswastoolax;

• reallocationarrangementsincaseofbadweatherwastoofavourabletothe hirer; and

• absenceofpenaltyfor“noshow”casesplusthefree“stand-by”arrangementsprovidedopportunitiesfortouting.

Asregardsinadequaciesinexecution,theyincluded:

• stafffailingtocheckidentitydocumentsdiligently;and

• noadministrativepenaltiesforunauthorisedtransferofpermits.

Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”)


BookingandUseofLCSD

SportsFacilities


July2011andcompletedon

19September2012)



5. Apartfromtoutingandrelatedbookingproblems,ourinvestigationalsoexaminedotherissuessuchasdifficultiesinbookingbyindividualsandorganisationsaswellasutilisationofthesportsfacilities.Theseincluded:

(1) bynotcountingbookingsbyLCSDandtheHomeAffairsBureauagainstthe quota for organisations, there was in effect no guarantee of available hoursforbookingbyindividuals;

(2) therequirementthatonlyhirerswereallowedtosigninwasinflexibleandinconvenient;

(3) inbookingfee-chargingfacilities,accessingtheLeisureLinkSystemduringpeakhourswasdifficult;

(4) inbookingnon-feechargingfacilities,noconvenientcomputerisedsystemwas provided;

(5) unclearguidelinesonprocessingbookingsbyorganisationsanddelaysinconfirmationofbookingshadcauseddifficultiestosomeorganisationsincoordinating activities;

(6) therequirementofa40-daynoticeforcancellationofbookingsbyorganisations ignored their operational needs in coordinating activities;

(7) theinconvenientarrangementsforcancellationofbookingsbyindividualsplusnopenaltyfor“no-show”casesinducedawasteofresources;

(8) LCSDwaslaxinhandlingcaseswhereorganisationsfailedtousebookedfacilities; and

(9) someofthefacilitieswerenotfullyutilisedandLCSDshouldconsideradjustingtheiropeninghourstoincreasesupply.

6. TheOmbudsmanmadeatotalof22recommendationstoLCSDregardingtoutingactivities,bookingsbyindividualsandorganisationsandtheuseoffacilities.LCSDacceptedalltherecommendations.

7. Ourrecommendationsshouldhelptoimprovethesituation.However,itwouldnotberealistictothinkthattheywouldsolveallbookingproblemsandeliminatealltoutingactivitiesonceandforall.Asthedepartmentresponsibleforthemanagementofsportsfacilities,LCSDshouldmonitorcloselytheutilisationofitsfacilities,listencarefullytothefeedbackofstakeholders,andkeepitssystemandarrangementsunderconstantreviewinordertomeettheneedsofthecommunity.

Background

Complaintcasesrevealedthatsomemeteredparkingspaceshavebeenclosedforperiodsmuchlongerthanactuallynecessaryfortheapprovedroadexcavationworks.AlthoughTDandHyDhadinitiatedsomeenhancementmeasuresin2010and2011,therewerestillmanycasesofnon-compliance(i.e.unnecessaryclosure).Accordingly,TheOmbudsmaninitiatedadirectinvestigationtoexaminetheissue.

Application for Temporary Closure of Metered Parking Spaces

2. Utilityundertakers(“UUs”)whichneedtocarryoutroadexcavationworkshavetoapplytoHyDforexcavationpermits(“XPs”).Ifserioustrafficimpactisinvolved,HyDwillrequireUUstosubmittemporarytrafficmanagement(“TTM”)proposalstoTDandtheHongKongPoliceForce(“HKPF”)forassessmentandapproval.Iftemporaryclosureofmeteredparkingspacesisrequired,theUUconcernedshouldincludesuchproposalintheTTMsubmissionforTD’sassessment.HyDwillthendeterminetheoverallXPperiod,takingintoaccounttheTTMendorsedbyHKPFandTD,andissueXPtotheUUconcerned.

3. TheUUconcernedwillthenliaisewithTDontheperiodofclosureofmeteredparkingspaces.OnapprovaloftheapplicationsubmittedbytheUUconcerned,TDwillissueaWorksRequesttoitscontractortoeffecttheclosure.

No Monitoring before September 2010

4. PriortoSeptember2010,therewasnomonitoringofUU’sactualoccupationoftemporarilyclosedmeteredparkingspaces,resultinginunnecessaryclosuresnotbeingdetected.AlthoughHyDconductedregularauditinspectionsonactivesitestochecktheircompliancewithXPconditions,theinspectionsdidnotcoversuchunnecessaryclosureofparkingspaces.

Enhanced Measures Introduced in 2010 and 2011

5. StartingfromlateSeptember2010,HyDagreedtonotifyTDofunnecessaryclosureofsuchparkingspacesdiscoveredduringauditinspectionsonatrialbasis.

6. InFebruary2011,TDbegantomonitorUU’sworkprogressthroughconducting routine site inspections shortly after the start of the closure period and periodicallythereafter,inadditiontoHyD’sauditinspections.

7. InFebruary2011,HyDalsopromulgatedtheinclusionofanewconditionintheXPconditionsrequiringUUstoobtainTD’spriorapprovalforoccupyingparkingspacesforroadworks.

8. From1April2011onwards,TDstartedtoissueformalapprovalletterswithspecifiedApprovalConditions,requiringUUstoconfirmtoTDthescheduledstartdateofclosureinadvance,toinformTDincaseofearlycompletionofworksandtosubmitupdatedsitephotosregularlytoTDforcheckingworkprogress.

Observations and Comments

Prolonged Period of Unnecessary Closure

9. Fourcaseswerestudied,whichillustratedtheextent(sometimesmorethanthreeweeks)ofunnecessaryclosureofmeteredparkingspacesduetoroadexcavationworks.Thenatureofnon-complianceincludedlatestartand/orearlycompletionofworksorcancellationofworkswithoutinformingTDtore-opentheparkingspaces.Whilstoneofthefourcasesoccurredin2009whentherewasnomonitoring on the subject, the other three cases showed that prolonged period of unnecessary closure persisted even after introduction of the enhanced measures in 2010and2011.


Transport Department (“TD”) and Highways Department (“Hy D”)


EffectivenessofAdministration

ofTemporaryClosureof

MeteredParkingSpacesduring

RoadWorksCarriedoutby

PublicUtilities


July2011andcompletedon

25May2012)


Need for Further Step-up of Monitoring Measures

10. RegardingTD’snewApprovalConditions,theconsequenceofnon-compliancewiththerequirementsofinformingTDaboutearlycompletionofworksandsubmittingregularsitephotoswasunclear.WeconsideritnecessaryforTDtospellouttheconsequence,whetherbyrefiningitsApprovalConditionsorbyotherwiseconveyingthemessagetoUUs.

11. TD’smonitoringoftheUU’sworkprogressafterimplementationoftheenhancedmeasuresremainedunsatisfactory.AsshowninacaseoccurringinJuly2011,theUUconcerneddidnotcomplywiththeApprovalConditionsinsubmittingupdatedsitephotosbutTDfailedtodiscoverthis.WeconsideritimportantforTDtocheckcloselythesubmissionofsitephotosbyUUs.Ifnecessary,TDshouldconsidersettingupacomputeriseddatabaseforthispurpose.

Approval of Duration of Closure Over-Generous

12. TD’sapprovalforestimatedtimerequiredforclosurewasover-generous.Thiswasreflectedinthecaseswestudied.Actualworkstookonly7daystocompleteversus31daysapprovedfortemporaryclosureofparkingspacesinonecase,15versus43daysand18versus94daysintwoothercases.

Need to Review Situation Regularly

13. Themagnitudeoftheproblemwasunknown,asTDallalongdidnotconductsitechecksuntilFebruary2011.Besides,beforeNovember2010,UUswereonlyverballyrequestedtoreportchangesofcommencement/completiondateoftheworks,whichcouldagainbemadeverbally.Also,TDkeptnostatisticalrecordsofnon-compliancecases.Asaresult,thesituationofnon-compliancesofardiscoveredmightbejustthetipoftheiceberg.TDshouldcontinuetoreviewthesituationregularlytoseeiffurthermeasureswerenecessarytotackleproblem.

Our Recommendations

14. TheOmbudsmanmadesixrecommendationsasfollows:

(1) HyDtocontinueconductingauditinspectionsonsitesinvolvingtemporaryclosureofmeteredparkingspacesandreportingnon-compliancetoTD,untilTD’smonitoringmeasureshaveshowntobefullyeffective;

(2) TDtoemphasisetoUUs,byrefiningthecontentsoftheApprovalConditionsorotherwise,theimportanceof:

(a) submittingsitephotosontimeandtheconsequenceofnon-compliance; and

(b) informingTDofearlycompletionofworksandtheconsequenceofnon-compliance;

(3) TDtocheckcloselythesubmissionofsitephotosbyUUsand,ifnecessary, to set up a computerised database for this purpose;

(4) TDtokeepstatisticalrecordsanddetailsofnon-compliancecases;

(5) TDtoreviewthesituationofnon-complianceathalfyearlyintervalstoseeif any further measures are necessary; and

(6) TDtoenhanceitsassessmentofthetimerequiredforclosureofparkingspaces.

Index of Cases Concluded by Full Investigation

Annex

7

Case No. ComplaintOverallConclusion

No. of Recommen- dations

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

2011/3083CFailingtopromptlyattendtothecomplainant’srequestforassistancetoprotecttheswallows’nestsattheexternalwallsof a law courts building

Substantiated 2

2011/3426Failingtoimplementproperlytherestrictiononvehicularentryintoaroadwithinacountryparkongeneralholidays

Substantiated 2

Airport Authority

2012/1414ALackofcommunicationwiththeImmigrationDepartmentwhenthe“RedRainstormWarning”wasinforce,thuscausing inconvenience to travellers

Unsubstantiated 0

Architectural Services Department

2011/3083AFailingtopromptlyattendtothecomplainant’srequestforassistancetoprotecttheswallows’nestsattheexternalwallsof a law courts building

Partiallysubstantiated

1

Buildings Department

2011/1858Failingtofollowupontheproblemsofbuildingsafetyandunauthorisedbuildingworksarisingfromtelecommunicationsequipment installed on the rooftops of two village houses

Unsubstantiated 1

2011/4312AFailingtotakeenforcementactionagainstsomeunauthorisedbuildingworks

Unsubstantiated 1

2011/4722Unreasonablyrequestingtoconductapondingtestatthecomplainant’s flat when handling a water seepage complaint

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/5219A Delayinhandlingawaterseepagecomplaint Substantiated 2

2011/5223BUnreasonablyissuinganuisancenoticetothecomplainant’smother when handling a water seepage complaint

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/1854(1) Inaccurateinformationinarepairorder(substantiated);

and(2) Failingtoreplytothecomplainant’squery(substantiated)

Substantiated 0

2012/2080Failingtotakeenforcementactionagainstunauthorisedbuildingworks

Unsubstantiated 1




2012/2234AFailingtofollowupacomplaintagainstunauthorisedbuildingworks

Substantiated 1

2012/2341AShirkingresponsibilityinhandlingacomplaintaboutanunauthorisedbuildingworksitem


0

2012/2630Failingtotakeenforcementactionagainstunauthoriseddooropenings and change of domestic use of a building

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2799AFailingtoprovideaccurateundergroundworkscharttothecomplainant

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2847

(1) Failingtoanswerthecomplainant’senquiries(unsubstantiated);

(2) Unreasonablyrejectingthecomplainant’sapplicationtojointheReportingSchemeforUnauthorisedBuildingWorks(“UBW”)inNewTerritoriesExemptedHouses(unsubstantiated);

(3) PostingaRemovalOrderinaplainenvelope(unsubstantiated);

(4) SelectiveenforcementagainstUBW(unsubstantiated);and

(5) Improperlypassingthecomplainant’sinformationtoaconsultingcompany(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/3780

(1) Unreasonablyrefusingtoconductfurthertestsatthepremises above the complainant’s in a water seepage complaint(unsubstantiated);

(2) Biasedandinaccurateinvestigationreport(unsubstantiated);

(3) Improperlyinformingtheownerofthepremisesabovethe complainant’s that he was not liable for any compensation(inconclusive);and

(4) Failingtouseanyinstrumentstoconductinvestigation(substantiatedotherthanalleged)

Substantiatedother than alleged

2

2012/3862CDenyingresponsibilityforinvestigatingawaterseepagecomplaintsimplyaftera15-minuteobservationwithoutconducting any tests

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/3922

(1) Mishandlingawaterseepagecomplaint(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Mishandlingacomplaintaboutunauthorisedbuildingworks(partiallysubstantiated)


2

Civil Aviation Department

2012/2862Failingtohandlethecomplainant’scomplaintagainsthelicopter noise nuisance


3

Civil Engineering and Development Department

2012/2851AFailingtoconductproperconsultationontheLiantang/HeungYuenWaiBoundaryControlPointproject

Unsubstantiated 0

Annex7 IndexofCasesConcludedbyFullInvestigation



Correctional Services Department

2011/2857

(1) Divulgingthedrugaddictionhistoryofareleasedinmate,who was the complainant’s son, while the released inmatewasundertheDepartment’sstatutorysupervision(inconclusive);

(2) Threateningtosendthereleasedinmatebacktotherehabilitation centre if he abused drugs again (inconclusive);and

(3) Failingtoproperlyfollowuponthecomplainant’stelephone calls for help in respect of the released inmate’s suicidal thoughts and her complaint against the officers concerned subsequent to the death of the releasedinmate(partiallysubstantiated)


2

2012/3179

(1) DelayinprovidingacomplaintformofthisOfficetothecomplainant(inconclusive);

(2) Pressuringandluringhimtoadmitbreachofdiscipline(inconclusive);and

(3) Takingawaytemporarilyacopyofhiswitnessstatementabout an assault case of himself that he wanted to hand overtoavisitor(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

Drainage Services Department

2012/2799BFailingtoprovideaccurateundergroundworkscharttothecomplainant

Unsubstantiated 0

Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

2012/1442Failingtomonitorproperlytheperformanceofamaintenanceservicecontractorfortheair-conditioningsystemofamarket

Substantiated 2

Employees Retraining Board

2011/4988

(1) Amissinitssupervisionofanappointedtrainingbody(unsubstantiated);

(2) Failingtoaddressacomplaintabouttheteachingqualityofacoursetrainer(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Unreasonablyrejectingthecomplainant’srequestfortransfer to a more advanced course and requiring her to continue attending the course not suitable for her (substantiated)


2

2012/2559

(1) Delayinhandlingthecomplainant’srequestforinformation(substantiated);

(2) WronglyquotingtheprovisionsoftheBoard’sownCodeonAccesstoInformation(“theCode”)whenrefusingthecomplainant’s request for information and failing to give reasonsforrefusal(partiallysubstantiated);

(3) WronglyadoptingcertainparagraphsoftheGovernment’sCodeonAccesstoInformationaspartsoftheCode(unsubstantiated);and

(4) Improperlyassigningthesameofficerinhandlingbothofthe complainant’s complaint and request for information (unsubstantiated)

Partiallysubstantiated 0




Environmental Protection Department

2011/3689B

Failingtoaccedetothecomplainant’srequestthathisenvironmental protection organisation be invited to consultation meetings, such that not all divergent views on Government’senvironmentalprotectionpolicyweretakenintoaccount

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/4161AFailingtoadequatelysuperviseacontractor’sdemolitionworkwhich involved asbestos and improperly handling a complaint against the contractor

Unsubstantiated 1

2011/5105AFailingtoprosecutetheoperatorofthecomplainant’sneighbouringshopforcausingairpollutioninitsplastic-cutting process at the shop front

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/0807Failingtofollowupontheproblemofdarksmokefrequentlyemitted from a chimney on the rooftop of a funeral parlour

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/0954DFailingtotakeenforcementactionagainsttheenvironmentalnuisances created by two offensive trade factories

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/1674

(1) Failingtoproperlycontrolthenoisenuisancecausedbyaconstructionsite(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Unreasonablyissuingapermitfor24-houroperationoftheconstructionsite(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2286

(1) Faultyproceduresforassessmentofanairpollutioncomplaint(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtotakeactionagainsttheimproperlocationofthekitchenexhaustoutletsoftwofoodpremises(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

Equal Opportunities Commission

2012/0855

(1) Refusingtotakeupthecomplainant’scaseonthewrongful ground that she lodged her complaint after the timebar(partiallysubstantiated);

(2) Failingtoprovideevidencetosupportitsclaimthatitsofficershadexplainedtherelevantlawstothecomplainant, who chose not to lodge her complaint at thattime(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Beingbiasedtowardsthecompanyundercomplaint(unsubstantiated)


1

Fire Services Department

2012/1184AShirkingresponsibilityinresolvingtheproblemofblockageofanEmergencyVehicularAccessinthecomplainant’svillage

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2234BFailingtoensurecompliancewiththefiresafetyregulationsapplied to a building

Unsubstantiated 0

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

2011/4073AFailingtotakeanyenforcementactionagainstsuspectedunauthorisedhawkingactivitiescarriedoutinthenameofcharity sale

Unsubstantiated 1

2011/4312BFailingtotakeenforcementactiontocurbthestreetobstruction problem caused by some unauthorised building works

Unsubstantiated 2




2011/5105BFailingtosolvetheenvironmentalhygieneandobstructionproblemscausedbytheplastic-cuttingprocessatthefrontofthe complainant’s neighbouring shop

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/5219B Delayinhandlingawaterseepagecomplaint Substantiated 2

2011/5223AUnreasonablyissuinganuisancenoticetothecomplainant’smother when handling a water seepage complaint

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/0192BFailingtotakeenforcementactioninawaterseepagecomplaint

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/0245Failingtotakeeffectiveenforcementactiontotackletheproblem of street and passageway obstruction caused by some candy stalls

Substantiated 1

2012/0629

Failingtoconducttestsinapropermannerwhenhandlingacomplaint about vapour condensation on the floor of the complainant’sflat,allegedlycausedbyanair-conditioneratthe flat below


2

2012/0875

(1) Delayinrespondingtoafoodcomplaint(substantiated);and

(2) Failingtotakeactionsonthecomplaint(partiallysubstantiated)

Substantiated 1

2012/0954AUnreasonablygrantingoffensivetradelicencestotheoperatorsoftwofactoriesandfailingtotakeactionagainstthe environmental nuisances created by the two factories


1

2012/1182Delayinprocessingthecomplainants’claimfordamagescausedbyawater-pipebursttotheirmarketstalls

Unsubstantiated 2

2012/1416

(1) FailingtotakeenforcementactionagainsttheunauthorisedroadsidebannersdisplayedbysomeDistrictCouncillorsatacertainlocation(unsubstantiated);

(2) Wronglyrequiringthecomplainanttopayfortheremovalcostforanunauthorisedroadsidebanner(substantiated);

(3) Failingtogivenoticebeforeremovingthesaidbanner(unsubstantiated);

(4) Delayinmailingtothecomplainantthedemandnotefortheremovalcostforthebanner(substantiated);and

(5) Failingtoaccountforthecalculationoftheremovalcostforthebanner(unsubstantiated)


1

2012/1764A

(1) Failingtotakeenforcementactionandshiftingresponsibility when handling a complaint about pavement obstruction and environmental nuisance caused by a recyclingshop(substantiatedotherthanalleged);and

(2) Failingtokeepthecomplainantinformedofthecaseprogress(unsubstantiated)


2

2012/2053

(1) Unreasonablyforbiddingfilminginacrematorium(substantiated);and

(2) Anofficerfailingtowearhisuniformandproducehisstaff identify card while on duty and showing poor manners(partiallysubstantiated)

Substantiated 2




2012/2130

(1) Failingtotakeenforcementactiononthedistributionoffreenewspapersatcertainlocations(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtorespondtothecomplainant’senquiry(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2146

(1) Failingtotakeenforcementactionagainstafruitshopwhichhadcausedstreetobstruction(partiallysubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtorespondtothecomplainant’srepeatedcomplaints(unsubstantiated)


1

2012/2363AFailingtoeffectivelycontroltheunauthorisedextensionofbusiness area by a licensed stall

Substantiated 1

2012/2430 Failingtorespondtoanobjectiontoalitteringcharge Substantiated 0

2012/2476

(1) Delayinrelocatingthreeportabletoiletsneararoadjunctionwhichhadallegedlyblockeddrivers’sightline(substantiated);and

(2) Makingfalseclaimaboutthelocalvillagers’objectiontorelocationoftheportabletoilets(substantiatedotherthanalleged)

Substantiated 3

2012/2566A(I)

(1) Delayinhandlingacomplaintaboutmiscellaneousarticles placed near the complainant’s residence and failingtosolvetheproblem(partiallysubstantiated);

(2) Failingtorespondtoacomplaintaboutstenchlodgedayearago(inconclusive)

(3) Failingtorespondtothecomplainant’srequestforthecasenumberofhercomplaint(substantiated);and

(4) Poorstaffattitude(unsubstantiated)


2

2012/2601

(1) Failingtotakeenforcementactionagainstnuisancescaused to the complainant’s premises by the emission of hotairfromanearbyair-conditioner(unsubstantiated);

(2) Measuringthetemperatureofthecomplainant’spremisesatinappropriatelocations(unsubstantiated);

(3) Improperproceduresinconductinginvestigationintothecomplainant’s complaint against emission of hot air from anearbyair-conditioner(unsubstantiated);and

(4) Delayinhandlingthecomplainant’scomplaint(substantiated)


1

2012/2697AFailingtoreplytothecomplainantaccordingtoperformancepledge

Substantiated 0

2012/2704(I)Refusingtoreleaseinformationoftheaffectedpremisesinawater seepage complaint in which the complainant’s premises was the suspected source of seepage

Substantiated 1

2012/2725

(1) Failingtorespondtoanenquiryaboutthesafetyofabottleofjuice(substantiated);and

(2) Inconsistencyinreplyingwhetheritwouldtakeenforcement action against the manufacturer which purportedly breached the food safety regulations (unsubstantiated)


1

2012/2741AFailingtotakeeffectiveenforcementactionagainstalicensedfood establishment which had caused street obstruction


1




2012/2803ADelayinhandlingacomplaintaboutthedisplayofunauthorised roadside election banners

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/3671

(1) Wrongfulapprovaloffoodbusinesslicencestotwofoodpremisesandfailingtotakeactionagainsttheimproperlocationofthekitchenexhaustoutletsofthosefoodpremises(unsubstantiated);

(2) Failingtotakeenforcementactionagainstafoodpremises which was in breach of the licensing requirement, and later operated without a licence (partiallysubstantiated);and

(3) Faultyarrangementforinspection(unsubstantiated)


2

2012/3862A

(1) Shiftingresponsibilitywheninvestigatingawaterseepagecomplaint(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtouseanyinstrumentstotestafreshwatersupplypipe(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/3883 MishandlingawaterseepagecomplaintPartiallysubstantiated

1

2012/3952(1) Unreasonablyrefusingtoexpediteinvestigationfora

waterseepagecomplaint(substantiated);and(2) Ineffectiveinvestigationmethodology(unsubstantiated)


1

Government Secretariat – Chief Secretary for Administration’s Office

2012/2621Failingtoprovideclearinformationtothepubliconthedifferent arrangements for reproduction of archival materials

Substantiated 1

2012/2697B Providingincorrectinformationtothecomplainant Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2803BFailingtoreferacomplaintaboutthedisplayofunauthorisedroadsideelectionbannerstorelevantdepartmentsforfollow-up action


1

2012/3140A

(1) Failingtorespondtothecomplainant’scomplaintagainstaGovernmentdepartment(partiallysubstantiated);and

(2) Providingthecomplainant’stelephonenumbertotheGovernment department without the complainant’s consent(unsubstantiated)


1

Government Secretariat – Education Bureau

2011/4434

(1) Unreasonablykeepingthecomplainantwaitingontheline for one and a half hours before the line suddenly wentdead(substantiated);and

(2) Unreasonablerefusalbyanofficertodisclosehisnametothe complainant and suddenly hanging up when the complainantwasstilltalking(substantiated)

Substantiated 2

2012/2183(I)

(1) Failingtofollowupthecomplainant’scomplaintagainsther husband for providing false information in her son’s applicationformforadmissiontoPrimary1andtodeclaretheapplicationformvoid(unsubstantiated);

(2) WronglyrefusingtotreattheapplicationformforadmissiontoPrimary1completedbythecomplainantasvalidandtoallocateaplacetoherson(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Unreasonablyrefusingtoprovidethecomplainantwithacopyoftheapplicationform(substantiated)


2




2012/2415

(1) Granting/renewingagreementsfortheoperationoftwonational education centres without going through open tender(partiallysubstantiated);

(2) Leasingavacantschoolpremisestoanorganisationforthe operation of a national education centre at a nominal rent without publishing the related principles and process (unsubstantiated);and

(3) Impropertenderarrangementsfortheoperationofanationaleducationcentre(substantiatedotherthanalleged)


1

2012/5425

(1) InconsistentexplanationoftheselectioncriteriaofSchoolPrincipal’sNominations(unsubstantiated);

(2) Unreasonablyincluding“SchoolServices”asaselectioncriterion(unsubstantiated);

(3) RefusingtodisclosethenamesofthemembersoftheSelectionCommittee(partiallysubstantiated);

(4) Improprietyinplacingteacherswhohadtaughtcandidatestowriteself-recommendationlettersintheSelectionCommittee(unsubstantiated);

(5) LackofmeetingminutesoftheSelectionCommittee(partiallysubstantiated);and

(6) Fabricationofadocument(unsubstantiated)


2

Government Secretariat – Environment Bureau

2011/3689A

Failingtoaccedetothecomplainant’srequestthathisenvironmental protection organisation be invited to consultation meetings, such that not all divergent views on Government’senvironmentalprotectionpolicyweretakenintoaccount

Unsubstantiated 0

Government Secretariat – Home Affairs Bureau

2011/4098

(1) UnclearproceduresforapplicationfortheuseofPrivateRecreationalLeasesfacilities(unsubstantiated);

(2) Unnecessarilydisclosingthecomplainant’sinformationtoa third party when processing the complainant’s application(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Delayinprocessingthecomplainant’sapplication(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2608Unreasonablyrejectingthecomplainant’sapplicationforAllowanceforNewArrivalsundertheCommunityCareFund

Unsubstantiated 0

Highways Department

2011/4270B

(1) Improperlybuildingagateforthe“PaiLau”ofavillagenear the complainant’s estate, such that villagers could illegally occupy the Government land behind the gate (substantiated);and

(2) Failingtoplanhowtohandletheproblemofthegate,such that a joint operation had to be cancelled when the villagers claimed ownership of the gate (unsubstantiated)


1




2012/0123AFailingtohandleproperlytheinstallationofcrashgatesattheentranceofaroadwithinacountrypark

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2799CFailingtohandlethecomplainant’srequestforwaiverofexcavationpermitcharge

Unsubstantiated 0

Home Affairs Department

2011/3089BFailingtoproperlyhandleunlawfuloccupationofGovernmentlandfor30years

Substantiated 1

2011/4270A


(2) Failingtoplanhowtohandletheproblemofthegate,such that a joint operation had to be cancelled when the villagersclaimedownershipofthegate(unsubstantiated)


1

2011/4509CRefusingtorectifyawronglotnumberonamemorialforregisteringthesuccessiontolandedpropertyintheNewTerritories


1

2012/0886BFailingtotakeupthemaintenanceresponsibilityofaslopewhich was formed after Government’s construction of a footpath within the complainant’s land

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/1604Mishandlingarequestforinstallationofbollardstopreventcarsfromdrivingthroughapedestrianwalkway

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2703Unreasonablyrequestingthecomplainanttoproducehistenancy agreement

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2968Unreasonablyrefusingthecomplainant’sapplicationforuseoffacilities in a community centre

Substantiated 1

2012/3187ARefusingtomediateamongthecomplainantsandaSmallHouse owner regarding the preservation of a footpath

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3851

(1) Unreasonablyrequiringapplicantsforhiringacommunityhall/centretosubmitacopyoftheapprovaldocumentforusingcopyrightworks(substantiated);

(2) Unreasonablyrequiring“eligibleorganisations”tosubmitacopyofsuchapprovaldocument(substantiated);

(3) Failingtograntanexemptionto“eligibleorganisations”from submitting such approval document (unsubstantiated);

(4) Failingtoprovideassistanceto“eligibleorganisations”toobtainapprovaldocuments(unsubstantiated)


1

Hong Kong Arts Development Council

2012/2418LackoffairnessandtransparencyintheselectionofacuratorrepresentingHongKongtotheVeniceBiennale

Unsubstantiated 0




Hospital Authority

2011/2936

(1) Delayinprocessingapatient’sapplicationforjoiningthePublicPrivateInterface–ElectronicPatientRecordSharingPilotProject,renderinghisrecordinaccessiblewhenneeded(substantiated);and

(2) Failingtoacknowledgealetterfromthepatient’sfamilyenquiringabouttheprogressoftheapplication(partiallysubstantiated)


2

2011/4424Failingtoaddressthecomplainant’squeriesregardingtheuseof physical restraint on his father


3

2012/1168Improper handling of a patient’s complaint on prescription of wrong medicine

Substantiated 2

Housing Department

2012/0935Delayinhandlingtwofloodingincidentsandprovidinguntrueinformation in the complainant’s claim procedure


2

2012/1240 Delayinhandlingareportofbackflowofsewage Unsubstantiated 1

2012/3547

Unreasonablyincludingthecomplainant’spreviousresidencein the list of unpopular public rental housing units under the ExpressFlatAllocationSchemeandprovidingincorrectinformation to the press

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3862DDenyingresponsibilityforinvestigatingawaterseepagecomplaintsimplyaftera15-minuteobservationwithoutconducting any tests

Unsubstantiated 1

Immigration Department

2011/5200

(1) Providinganincorrecttelephonenumbertothecomplainant such that she was unable to get timely help from a border control point and failing to call an ambulanceforheraspromised(unsubstantiated);

(2) Failingtoexplaintothecomplainantthatcallinganambulance was outside the scope of the hotline service andadviseherwheretoseekhelp(partiallysubstantiated);and

(3) Failingtomaintaincompleterecordsoftelephonecallsfromenquirersseekinghelp(partiallysubstantiated)


3

2012/1414BLackofcommunicationwiththeAirportAuthoritywhenthe“RedRainstormWarning”wasinforce,thuscausinginconvenience to travellers

Unsubstantiated 0

Inland Revenue Department

2012/0077 FailingtoretaincompleterecordsinataxrecoverycasePartiallysubstantiated

3

Judiciary Administrator

2011/3083BFailingtopromptlyattendtothecomplainant’srequestforassistancetoprotecttheswallows’nestsattheexternalwallsof a law courts building

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/1922BFailingtogiveatrueaccountofanincidentinthecourseofaninvestigation into the complainant’s complaint

Unsubstantiated 1




Labour Department

2011/4161BFailingtoadequatelysuperviseacontractor’sdemolitionworkwhich involved asbestos and improperly handling a complaint against the contractor

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2623(I)Refusingthecomplainant’srequestforinformationandfailingto give reasons for refusal

Substantiated 1

2012/4825

(1) Wronglyreferringthecomplainant’scasetotheMinorEmploymentClaimsAdjudicationBoard(partiallysubstantiated);

(2) Providingincorrectadvicetothecomplainant(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Refusingtoconfirmthereasonforrejectingthecomplainant’scaseinwriting(unsubstantiated)


1

Land Registry

2011/4509BRefusingtorectifyawronglotnumberonamemorialforregisteringthesuccessiontolandedpropertyintheNewTerritories

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3813

FailingtoregisterintheLandRegisterinrespectofaflatinabuildingaLetterofComplianceregardinginvestigationordersissuedbytheBuildingsDepartment,suchthatanapplicationforreversemortgagebytheowneroftheflat(thecomplainant)wasunsuccessful

Substantiated 0

Lands Department

2011/1859Failingtotakefurtherleaseenforcementactionagainstthebreach of lease conditions caused by the installation of antennas on the rooftops of two village houses

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/3089CFailingtoproperlyhandleunlawfuloccupationofGovernmentlandfor30years

Substantiated 2

2011/4270C


(2) Failingtoplanhowtohandletheproblemofthegate,such that a joint operation had to be cancelled when the villagersclaimedownershipofthegate(unsubstantiated)


1

2011/4312CFailingtotakeenforcementactionagainstsomeunauthorisedbuildingworksonGovernmentland

Substantiated 1

2011/4509ARefusingtorectifyawronglotnumberonamemorialforregisteringthesuccessiontolandedpropertyintheNewTerritories

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/4961Delayinhandlingthecomplainant’squeryabouttheareaofland to be allowed for use under a proposed short term tenancy

Substantiated 1

2012/0106

Refusingtherequestofthecomplainant(theowners’committeeofanestate)toclarifytherationaleforapprovingtheallegedlyunfairprovisionsoftheDeedofMutualCovenantoftheestate

Unsubstantiated 0




2012/0120Failingtostoptheillegaloperationofacolumbariumanditsunauthorised occupation of Government land


3

2012/0192AFailingtorepairthewaterproofinglayerofthefloorslaboftheroofofabuildingonbehalfoftheFinancialSecretaryIncorporated

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/0583 Delayinhandlingthecomplainant’ssmallhouseapplication Substantiated 2

2012/0954BUnreasonablygrantingshort-termtenanciestotwooffensivetrade factories

Substantiated 1

2012/1184BShirkingresponsibilityinresolvingtheproblemofblockageofanEmergencyVehicularAccessinthecomplainant’svillage

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/1764C

(1) Failingtotakeenforcementactionandshiftingresponsibility when handling a complaint about pavement obstruction and environmental nuisance caused by a recyclingshop(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtokeepthecomplainantinformedofthecaseprogress(substantiated)


1

2012/1909(I)Unreasonablyrefusingtoprovidethecomplainantswithdocuments related to their squatters


2

2012/2268Delayintakingleaseenforcementactionagainstpropertyowners who violated the restriction on land use

Substantiated 1

2012/2341BShirkingresponsibilityinhandlingacomplaintaboutanunauthorisedbuildingworks


1

2012/2363BFailingtoeffectivelycontroltheillegaloccupationofGovernment land by the operator of a stall


1

2012/2444Failingtotakelandcontrolactionagainstanumberofshopswhich had illegally occupied Government land


1

2012/2566B(I)

(1) Delayinhandlingacomplaintaboutmiscellaneousarticles placed near the complainant’s residence and failingtosolvetheproblem(partiallysubstantiated);

(2) Failingtorespondtothecomplainant’srequestforthecasenumberofhercomplaint(substantiated);and

(3) Failingtorecoverthecostforremovingthemiscellaneousarticlesfromtheirowner(unsubstantiated)


1

2012/2741BFailingtotakeeffectiveenforcementactionagainstafoodestablishment which had illegally occupied Government land


1

2012/2851BFailingtoconductproperconsultationontheLiantang/HeungYuenWaiBoundaryControlPointproject

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3187BImproprietyinapprovingaSmallHouseproject,resultinginthe removal of a footpath

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3831AImproprietyinhandlingaproposedextensionforTemporaryGovernmentLandAllocationtotheWaterSuppliesDepartment

Unsubstantiated 1




Leisure and Cultural Services Department

2011/4956Failingtoverifyatenderer’seligibilityinatenderexerciseformanagementofturfcricketpitchesatarecreationground


2

2011/5182ADelayinimplementingaprojecttoconstructleisureandrecreation facilities

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/1591Unfairnessintheassessmentforapplicationsforhiringaperforming venue and mishandling the display and distribution of publicity materials

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/1657BFailingtoproperlyhandlethenuisancecausedbyairbornefloss of cotton trees to residents nearby


1

2012/1718Failingtoproperlyhandlethenuisancecausedbyairbornefloss of cotton trees to residents nearby


1

Marine Department

2012/1983Mishandlingthecomplainant’sapplicationforpermissiontolay a private mooring


1

Office of the Telecommunications Authority

2011/1860

Approvingtheapplicationofatelecommunicationscompanyfor installation of telecommunications equipment on the rooftop of a village house without ascertaining the relevant Government department’s permission

Unsubstantiated 0

2011/4218Falselyclaimingthatthecomplainanthadrefusedtogiveastatement in order to cover up delay in commencing investigation into a complaint

Unsubstantiated 1

2011/4813Failingtostopanadvertisingcompanyfromsendingunsolicitedfaxadvertisementstothecomplainant

Unsubstantiated 0

Official Receiver's Office

2011/4916

(1) Failingtocarefullyexaminethevalueofabankrupt’spropertyinmainlandChinawhenactingastrustee(substantiated);and

(2) Delayinhandlingthecomplaint(unsubstantiated)

Substantiated 3

2012/1664Unduedelayinrealisingabankrupt’sassetsanddistributingthe dividends to the complainant as a creditor

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2801Failingtotakeproperactionforabankruptcycase,anddelayin replying to the complainant’s enquiry

Unsubstantiated 0

Planning Department

2012/0954CTakingselectiveenforcementactionagainstthehoardingsonthe complainant’s land, but not the altered use of land by an offensive trade factory

Unsubstantiated 1

Post Office

2012/0360 Improper handling of a complaint about mail deliveryPartiallysubstantiated

3

2012/0962Failingrepeatedlytodeliveroverseasparcelstothecomplainantand returning the undelivered parcels to the sender without first serving on the complainant a notice of collection

Unsubstantiated 0




2012/2439(I)

(1) Delayinrespondingtothecomplainant’senquiry(substantiated);

(2) UnreasonablywithholdingadamagereportissuedbytheMainlandpostaladministration(substantiated);and

(3) Citingawrongmailitemnumberinitsreplyletterandallegedlyprovidinganuntruestatement(partiallysubstantiated)


2

Rating and Valuation Department

2012/1922A

(1) Givingwrongadviceforthecomplainant’sapplicationforrepossessionofhisproperty(unsubstantiated);

(2) Neglectinghimmaliciouslywhenhewasqueuingattheenquirydesktoexpresshisviews(unsubstantiated);and

(3) Failingtoconductathoroughinvestigationintohiscomplaint(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2786

(1) Unhelpfulandsloppystaffattitude(inconclusive);(2) Delayinhandlingthecomplainant’sapplicationfor

information of the rateable value of a property (unsubstantiated);and

(3) Mishandlingthecomplainant’srequestforrefund(unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 3

Registration and Electoral Office

2012/2803CDelayinhandlingacomplaintaboutthedisplayofunauthorised roadside election banners


1

2012/3031(I)

(1) Providingthecomplainantwithinconsistentinformationabouthiseligibilityforvotinginthe2012LegislativeCouncilElection(inconclusive);

(2) Incorrectlyinformingthecomplainantthathecouldnotrequestchangeofpersonalinformationbyfax(unsubstantiated);

(3) Refusingtoprovidetheletterspreviouslyissuedtothecomplainantasperhisrequest(partiallysubstantiated);and

(4) Incorrectlyadvisingthecomplainantthathecouldvoteinanother geographical constituency to which he no longer belonged(unsubstantiated)


0

2012/3176

(1) Failingtocontactthecomplainanttoconfirmheraddressbeforecancellinghervoterregistration(partiallysubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtotakepromptactiontoaddressthecomplainant’s complaint about having received the poll cardsofsomeunknownpersons(unsubstantiated)


2

Social Welfare Department

2011/4073B

Failingtosuspendthecharitysalebyacharitableorganisationimmediately on learning that the organisation had allegedly transferreditsPublicSubscriptionPermittohawkersforprofit-makinghawkingactivities


1




2012/1418

(1) Unreasonablyrefusingtofollowupacomplaintagainstasubventednon-governmentalorganisation(unsubstantiated);and

(2) FailingtoprovideonitswebsitetheChineseversionofsome documents relating to the monitoring of subvented non-governmentalorganisations(substantiated)


1

2012/1511

(1) Unreasonablenessintheassessmentoftheincomeofanelderly and disabled couple, who had received a residential property as a gift, such that they had to return onemonth’sComprehensiveSocialSecurityAllowance(partiallysubstantiated);and

(2) Delayinhandlingtheapplicationofthecomplainant’sfatherforDisabilityAllowance(unsubstantiated)


1

2012/2285

Misleadingthecomplainant’sfatherintothinkingthathehadto remove the complainant’s name from the tenancy agreement of his public housing unit in order to obtain ComprehensiveSocialSecurityAllowance

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/2305Failingtoproperlymonitorthestaffingandfacilitiesofanelderly home at which the complainant’s mother had fallen down and sustained injuries several times within two years

Unsubstantiated 0

2012/3140B

(1) Failingtoarrangeanotherofficertotakecareofadisabled person who was under legal guardianship of the DirectorofSocialWelfarewhenthecaseofficerwasonleave(unsubstantiated);

(2) Improperresponsetothecomplainant’senquiryaboutthe health condition of the disabled person (substantiated);and

(3) Assigningtheofficerundercomplainttohandlethecomplainant’scomplaint(substantiatedotherthanalleged)


2

Student Financial Assistance Agency

2011/4892

(1) Delayinprocessingthecomplainant’sapplicationfordefermentofloanrepayment(substantiated);and

(2) Unreasonablyrequestingthecomplainanttopaytheinterest on default payment during the processing period ofhisapplicationfordeferment(substantiated)

Substantiated 0

2012/0626ProhibitingtheofferofanycoursetuitionfeediscounttoSeniorCitizenCardholderswhoappliedfortheContinuingEducationFund’sreimbursablecourses

Unsubstantiated 0

Transport Department

2011/3089AFailingtoproperlyhandleunlawfuloccupationofGovernmentlandfor30years


1

2011/3137

(1) Mishandlingcomplaintsaboutexcessivesoundvolumeoftheaudio-visualsystemonfranchisedbuses(unsubstantiated);and

(2) Failingtosufficientlymonitorwhethertheadvertisingtimewaskeptwithinthestipulatedratio(substantiated)


0




2011/4000Failingtoexerciseduecarewhileupdatingthecomplainant’sdata, resulting in an error in his address record and hence non-receiptofafixedpenaltyticketissuedtohimbythePolice


0

2012/0095Improper handling of a complaint about unauthorised change of minibus route

Substantiated 0

2012/0123BFailingtoimplementproperlytherestrictiononvehicularentryintoaroadwithinacountryparkongeneralholidays

Substantiated 3

2012/1403Unfairtreatmentinrejectingthecomplainant’sapplicationsfor residents’ bus service and selective enforcement in terminating its coach service

Unsubstantiated 1

2012/2206Unreasonablyrejectingthecomplainant’sapplicationfordrivingexaminationduetohisperviousdishonouredchequepayment of vehicle licence fee

Unsubstantiated 0

Water Supplies Department

2012/3831BDelayinhandlinglocalresidents’objectiontotheDepartment’sapplicationforanextensionofTemporaryGovernmentLandAllocation


1

2012/3862B

(1) Contradictingconclusionsaboutwhetherafreshwatersupplypipehadleakage(unsubstantiated);and

(2) OverrulingthefindingsofanotherGovernmentdepartment without conducting thorough tests (unsubstantiated)

Unsubstantiated 1

Summaries of Selected Cases Concluded by Full Investigation(Whereapplicable,thespecificaspectofmaladministrationestablishedis

highlightedforclearerfocusattheendofthecasesummary)

Annex

8

Details of Complaint

The complainant noted that traffic signs were placed at the entrance of a road withinacountrypark(“theRoad”),prohibitingvehiclesfromenteringongeneralholidays(“generalholidayrestriction”).However,ononeSunday,heallegedlysawseveralvehicles(includingaGovernmentvehicle)usingtheroad,butAFCDstaffturnedablindeyetothemanddidnottakeenforcementactions.

2. ThecomplainantallegedthattherewasneitheracrashgatenorawatchmanattheentranceoftheRoadtopreventvehiclesfromenteringongeneralholidays.

3. Countryparkmanagement,roadtrafficmanagementandinstallationofcrashgatesattheentranceoftheRoadaretheresponsibilitiesofAFCD,TDandHyDrespectively.Thiscomplaint,therefore,involvedthethreeGovernmentdepartments.

Sequence of Events

4. Towardstheendof2003,severalGovernmentdepartments(includingAFCD,TDandHyD)heldameetinganddecidedtoinstallcrashgatesattheentranceoftheRoadtopreventvehicularentryongeneralholidays.HyDcompletedtheinstallationworksinAugust2005.Asthekeysofthegateswereyettobehandedovertothedepartmentsconcerned,AFCDonlystartedinlateMay2006toputthegatesintooperationbeforeandafterageneralholiday.

5. AFCDsentanemailtoTDinmid-June2006,claimingthatthecrashgateswerepositionedlessthanthreemetresfromanexpresswaywhichranperpendiculartotheRoad.Whenitsstaffstoppedtheirvehicleinfrontofthegatestoerectorremovethem,thebackofthevehiclewouldstickouttotheexpresswayandposeapotentialsafetyrisk.

6. TDstaffconductedasiteinspectionafterwardsandconfirmedthatthedistancebetweenthecrashgatesandtheexpresswaywasfivemetres,whichshouldbesufficientforAFCDstafftoparktheirvehicleparalleltotheexpressway.However,AFCDinsistedthatsomelargevehicles(suchasrefusecollectionvehicles)mightneedtoenterandleavethecountryparkongeneralholidays.It,therefore,suggestedthatthegatesberelocatedfurtherawayfromtheexpressway.AFCDwouldsimplynotputthegatesintooperationforthetimebeing.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”), Transport Department (“TD”) and Highways Department (“Hy D”)

CaseNos.OMB2011/3426,

OMB2012/0123A&B–

Countryparkmanagement

Mainallegations:

AFCDandTD–failingto

implement properly the

restriction on vehicular entry

into a road within a country

parkongeneralholidays;and

failing to handle properly the

installation of crash gates at

the entrance of the road

–substantiated

HyD–failingtohandle

properly the installation of

crash gates at the entrance of

aroadwithinacountrypark

–unsubstantiated


7. InearlyJuly2006,TDsentamemorandumtoHyD,AFCDandtheWaterSuppliesDepartmenttoseektheirviewsonrelocatingthecrashgates.TheninMay2010,TDsentaworkrequestof“normalpriority”toHyD,whichputtherequestonitslistofsmall-scaletrafficimprovementprojects. 8. Inmid-October2010,HyDinformeditscontractoroftheproposaltorelocatethecrashgates.Thecontractordrewupatemporarytrafficarrangement(“TTA”)andappliedtoTDandthePoliceforapproval.Inmid-October2011,AFCDwrotetoTDandurgedittostarttherelocationworksassoonaspossible.Meanwhile,HyDalsoenquiredTDoftheapprovalstatusoftheTTA.TDthenrepliedthatithadnoobjectiontothearrangement.

9. ThecontractorcompletedtherelocationworksinMarch2012.Startingfrom1April,AFCDstaffwouldputthecrashgatesintooperationbeforeandaftergeneralholidays.

Comments from the Three Departments

Allegation of Failure to Implement Properly the General Holiday Restriction

10. AFCDexplainedthattheRoadwasopentobicyclesandothervehiclesonnon-holidays.Owingtothelargenumberofvisitorsonpublicholidays,however,TDsetupthegeneralholidayrestrictionontheRoadforvisitors’safety.Therewereroadsignsattheentrancestatingtherestrictionperiod.AFCDheldthatvehicularcontrolontheRoadshouldbetheresponsibilityofTD.Meanwhile,HyDshouldtakeuprepairsandmaintenanceoftheRoad,andthePoliceshouldenforcetrafficcontrol.

11. TDarguedthataccordingtothelaw,countryparksshouldbeunderthejurisdictionofAFCD.Asamatteroffact,inamemorandumissuedin2004,theLandsDepartmentsuggestedthatTDconsultAFCDconcerningthearrangementstoprohibitvehicularentrytotheRoad.ThisindirectlyprovedthatTDdidnothavejurisdictionoverthemanagementoftheRoad.

12. AFCDinsistedthatitsstaffhadnotbeenempoweredbythelawtoenforcevehicularcontrolontheRoad.ViolationsofthegeneralholidayrestrictionwouldbereportedtothePoliceforfollow-upaction.

13. TDclaimedthattrafficcontrolsignshadbeenplacedontheRoadtoadvisemotoristsofthegeneralholidayrestriction.ThePolicewouldtakeenforcementactionsagainstoffendersandinstituteprosecutions.TDalsoconfirmedthatamongthevehiclesthatallegedlyhadenteredtheRoadonthatSunday,onlytheGovernmentvehiclehadapermittoentertheRoad.

Allegation of Failure to Install Crash Gates at the Entrance of the Road

14. AFCDexplainedthattherewaspotentialsafetyriskduetoamistakemadebyHyDininstallingthecrashgatesandthatTDhadalsoaskedAFCDnottoputupthegatesinbadweathersothatvehiclesmightentertheparkforemergencyrepairs.AFCDstaff,therefore,stoppedputtingthegatesintooperationduringgeneralholidays.

15. TDreiteratedthatthetrafficcontrolsignsattheentranceshouldservethepurposeofremindingmotoristsofthegeneralholidayrestrictionontheRoad.Thecrashgateswereonlyasupplementaryfacility.

16. TDalsonotedthatithadactuallyconsultedAFCDin2004regardingthedesignof the crash gates and, after an inspection, confirmed that the gates were located fivemetresfromtheexpressway.ThedistanceconformedtotheoriginalrequirementsandshouldbesufficientforAFCDstafftoparkavehicleofsuitable

Annex8 SummariesofSelectedCasesConcludedbyFullInvestigation

length(e.g.alightgoodsvehicle)whenputtingthegatesintooperation.So,nomistakewasinvolvedandtherelocationworkswereinnowayurgent.Nevertheless,TDfinallyagreedtorelocatethegatesandadvisedAFCDnottoputupthegatesinbadweather.

17. Between2006and2010,therehadbeenanumberofpersonnelchangesandtransfersamongthoseTDengineersresponsiblefortheregionwherethecountryparkwassituated.Theyhelddivergentviewsonwhetherthecrashgateswerenecessary.TDfinallyissuedaworkrequesttoHyDinMay2010.Thecontractor’sTTAapplication,however,didnotreachtheTDstaffresponsibleduetoanerrorindispatch.Assuch,TDissueditsreplyonlyinNovember2011.

18. HyDpointedoutthatthecrashgateswereinstalledin2005andreadyforuse.TD’srequestinMay2010fortheirrelocationwasregardedonlyassomeenhancementworks,withaprioritylowerthanotherprojects.Therefore,itwasneverdiscussedatthejointmonthlyworksmeetingsofHyDandTD,andHyDdidnotfollowupthematterimmediatelyevenwhenTDtookalongtimetoapprovethecontractor’sTTAapplication.Lateron,whenHyDlearnedthatTDexpectedanearlycompletionoftherelocationproject,itpromptlycommencedtheworks.ThegateswerefinallyrelocatedinMarch2012.

Our Observations and Comments

Allegation of Failure to Implement Properly the General Holiday Restriction

19. ThecomplainantclaimedthathesawseveralvehiclesenteringtheRoadonageneralholiday.TDconfirmedthatonlyoneGovernmentvehicleheldapermit.This showed that the road signs alone could not ensure effective implementation of thegeneralholidayrestriction.Actually,thedepartmentsconcernedhadalreadydecidedthatcrashgateswereneeded.However,therehadbeenobviousinadequaciesintheimplementationofthearrangement.

20. Astherewasnoindependentevidence,thisOfficecouldnotdeterminewhetherAFCDstaffhad,asalleged,turnedablindeyetooffenders.Anyway,AFCDhasastatutorydutytomanageandprotectcountryparks,andhencearesponsibilitytostopanyirregularitieswithinthoseparks.

Allegation of Failure to Install Crash Gates at the Entrance of the Road

21. Accordingtoanagreementamongthedepartmentsconcerned,aftertheinstallationofthecrashgatesinAugust2005,AFCDstaffshouldberesponsibleforputtingthegatesintooperationbeforeandafterageneralholiday.Nevertheless,AFCDcitedvariousreasonsandjuststoppedperformingthisduty.Italsofailedtodevise other feasible measures to prevent violation of the general holiday restriction beforerelocationofthegates.Thisreflecteditsnegativeattitudeandinflexibilityinhandlingtheproblemandamountedtoderelictionofduty.Besides,AFCDkeptsilentwhenTDconsulteditregardingthedesignofthegatesin2004,onlytopointouttheproblemandaskforrectificationaftertheyhadbeeninstalled.Thiswasclearlyawasteoftimeandresources.

22. WhenTDlearnedofAFCD’sintentiontostopputtingupthecrashgates,itshouldhavediscussedthematterwithAFCDanddevisearelocationworksschedule.TDshouldalsoconsidertakinginterimmeasurestoimplementeffectivelythegeneralholidayrestriction.

23. TDalsoindicatedthatthereweredivergentviewsamongitsengineersonrelocationofthegatesbetween2006and2010.Nevertheless,itprovidednoinformationshowingthattherehadbeeninternaldiscussionsabouttheissue.SuchdiscussionswereinfactunnecessaryasTDhadalreadysoughttheopinionsofotherdepartmentsconcernedinJuly2006regardingrelocationofthegates.


24. WeconsideredTDtohavefailedtoprovideareasonableexplanationforitsfailuretofollowuppromptlytherelocationworksbetween2006and2010.Actually,withoutsettingupabring-upsystemformonitoringofnon-urgentprojectssuchasrelocationofgates,thesenon-urgentprojectscouldeasilybeneglected.Inaddition,thecontractor’sapplicationforapprovalinDecember2010regardingtheTTAwasdelayedforaboutayearbecauseofadispatcherroronthepartofTD.Wefoundsuchdelayunacceptable.

25. AsforHyD’sfollow-uponthecontractor’swork,theDepartmentonlyactedonTD’srequestandproceededwiththerelocationworksaccordingtoitsproposal.WefoundnoimproprietyonthepartofHyDconcerningtheinstallationandrelocationofthegates.

26. WealsofoundnodocumentaryrecordsonthejurisdictionanddivisionofworkamongthedepartmentsregardingthemanagementresponsibilityoftheRoad.BothAFCDandTDshiftedtheresponsibilitytoeachother.WeconsideredthatasAFCDstaffmemberswereresponsibleforputtingthegatesintooperationandwouldconductregularpatrolsinthecountrypark,itshouldbeeasierforthemtospotanyproblemsandrespondpromptly.Therefore,itwouldbemoreappropriateforAFCDtobethecoordinatingdepartment.

Conclusion

27. AFCDstoppedtakinguptheresponsibilityofputtingthecrashgatesintooperationsoonaftertheirinstallation.Italsofailedtotakeanyfeasiblemeasurestoprevent violation of the general holiday restriction and was trying to stay away from theproblem.TDalsodidnotfollowuptheproblemproperlysuchthatthecrashgateswererendereduseless.Meanwhile,theproposedrelocationworksweredelayedbecauseofadispatcherror.TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstAFCDandTDsubstantiated.

28. TherewasnoimproprietyonthepartofHyDregardingtheinstallationandrelocationofthecrashgates.TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstHyDunsubstantiated.

Recommendations

29. TheOmbudsmanmadeanumberofrecommendationstoAFCDandTD.Theyincluded:

(1) AFCDtotaketheleadinholdingdiscussionswithotherdepartmentsconcerned(suchasTDandHyD)toclarifythedivisionofworkamongthemregardingthemanagementresponsibilityoftheRoadandsetupanincidentsreportmechanism.Anyoftheirdecisionsmadeshouldbeclearly recorded and properly filed;

(2) TDtodeviseabring-upsystemformonitoringalltypesofworksrequiringfollow-upaction;and

(3) TDtoreviewitsinternaldispatchandfilerecordsmechanismtoavoiderrorsandomissions.



DuringatelephonediscussionaboutacomplaintwithOfficerAofEDB,thecomplainantrequestedtospeaktoOfficerA’ssupervisor.ThecomplainantsaidthatshecouldholdthelineandOfficerAagreedtotransferthecall.Shethenwaitedforaboutoneandahalfhours,butnobodypickedupthetelephone.Thelinethensuddenlywentdead.

2. Thenextday,thecomplainantcalledOfficerAagainandrequestedtospeaktohersupervisor.OfficerBpickedupthetelephone,butrefusedtodisclosehisname.Heevenhungupabruptlywhilethecomplainantwasstilltalking.

Recording of Telephone Conversations

3. Arecordingofthetelephoneconversationsprovidedbythecomplainantrevealedthefollowing.DuringherconversationwithOfficerA,thecomplainantdidnotwanttohangup.SheinsistedonholdingthelineandwaitingtospeaktoOfficerA’ssupervisor,andOfficerAagreedtoletherwaitandholdtheline.Shethenwaitedforaboutoneandahalfhoursbeforethelinewentdead.Thenextday,whenthecomplainantwastalkingtoOfficerB,sheaskedhimmanytimesforhisname,butherefusedtotellher.OfficerBtoldthecomplainantthathewasnotfromthesameteamasOfficerA’sanditwas,therefore,“pointlessandunnecessary”togivehisnametothecomplainant.Finally,whilethecomplainantwasstilltalking,thelinewentdead.

Response from EDB

Allegation (1)

4. EDBconsideredOfficerAtohavebeenpatientandpoliteduringthetelephoneconversationwiththecomplainant.OfficerAdeniedhavingpromisedtotransferthecomplainant’scalltohersupervisor.OfficerAfeltthatthecomplainantwasratheragitatedatthatjuncture,soshedidnotdaretoaskthecomplainanttohangupbutsimplyplacedherhandsetaside.OfficerAwasthensobusywithherworkthatshedidnotnoticewhenthelinewentdead.

5. EDBhadsinceremindedfrontlinestafftopromptlyinformmembersofthepublic if their request could not be met, so that they would not have unrealistic expectations.

Allegation (2)

6. OfficerBwasnotamemberoftheBureau’sComplaintHandlingUnit,sohedidnotseeanyneedtodisclosehisnametothecomplainant.Yet,EDBagreedthatOfficerB,asapublicofficer,shouldnothaverefusedtodisclosehisname.EDBhadsince instructed staff to listen patiently when answering calls from the public and givethemclearreplies.Furthermore,staffmustnotrefusetodisclosetheirnamesandjobtitles.

Our Comments

7. Accordingtotherecordingofthetelephoneconversations,OfficerA’sresponse could lead the complainant to believe that her call would be transferred to aseniorofficer.EvenifOfficerAdidnotknowhowtodealwiththecomplainant’sreaction, she could have told the complainant that she needed to consult her supervisorbeforecomingbacktothecomplainant.

8. AsOfficerBwasneitheramemberoftheComplaintHandlingUnitnorOfficerA’ssupervisor,OfficerAshouldnothavelethimanswerthecallatall,norshouldhehaveansweredit.Asapublicofficer,heshouldnothaverefusedtodisclosehisnamewhenansweringacallfromthepublic.Moreover,therecordingrevealedthatOfficerBhadreallybeenrude.

Education Bureau (“EDB”)

CaseNo.OMB2011/4434–

Staffattitude

Allegations:(1)anofficer

unreasonably putting the caller

on hold for a long time, until

thelinesuddenlywentdead–

substantiated;and(2)an

officer unreasonably refusing

to disclose his name and

abruptlyhangingup–

substantiated

A case of delay and failure to carry out duties conscientiously


Conclusion and Recommendations

9. TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintsubstantiated.

10. TheOmbudsmanurgedEDBtocloselymonitorstaff’scompliancewithitsinstructionstoavoidoccurrenceofsimilarincidents.Furthermore,EDBshouldapologisetothecomplainantforitsstaff’simproperbehaviour.


ThecomplainantwasastalloperatorinamarketundertheFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment(“FEHD”).Sincetheendof2011,themarket’sair-conditioningsystemoftenmalfunctionedandneededrepairs.Moreover,thecomplainant alleged that the contractor had once refused to respond to his enquiries while doing some repairs and had on another occasion failed to abide by itsperformancepledgetoarriveatthevenuewithintwohoursforrepairwork.HeconsideredthatE&MSDhadfailedtomonitoritscontractorproperly.

Our Findings

Maintenance of Air-conditioning System in Public Market

2. Themaintenanceservicesofthemarket’sair-conditioningsystemwereoutsourcedtoacontractor,whoseperformancewasmonitoredbyE&MSD.Toensurethatallrepairsandroutinecheckswerecarriedoutproperly,E&MSDwouldreview,amongothers,afaultcallsummaryreport(“theSummaryReport”)updatedandsubmitteddailybythecontractor.Themaintenancecontractstipulatedthatthe contractor should attend the fault within two hours upon receipt of a report fromFEHD.

3. AccordingtoE&MSDrecordsbetween1November2011and31October2012,itscontractorreceived177faultreportsfromFEHDconcerningthemarket’sair-conditioningsystem.Inparticular,therewere108complaintcasesabouttheair-conditioningsysteminaround150daysbetweenMayandSeptember,ofwhichimmediateorfollow-uprectificationswerenecessaryin75cases.Thefiguresshowedthatstalloperatorswerehighlydissatisfiedwiththeair-conditioningsystemduringhotseasons.

E&MSD’s Monitoring Records

4. HavingexaminedtheSummaryReportskeptbyE&MSDandcross-checkedthemagainsttherecordsofFEHD,wespottedover100entrieswhichseemedtobeunreasonableorinconsistent.Forexample,thetimesorlocationsmentionedinFEHD’sfaultreportsweredifferentfromthoseintherecordssubmittedtoE&MSDbythecontractor.Insomeothercases,FEHDhadrequestedthecontractortorepaircertainfaults,butE&MSDhadnorelevantrecords.

Response from E&MSD

5. E&MSDexplainedthat,onthedatespecifiedbythecomplainant,thecontractorhadproperlyfolloweduphiscomplaintaboutair-conditioningsystembreakdownandarrivedatthevenuewithintwohoursincompliancewiththeperformancepledge.Nonetheless,E&MSDadmittedthattherewereinadequaciesin the way the contractor handled the complainant’s enquiries and so had urged thecontractortomakeimprovement.Asregardsourfindings,E&MSDhadthefollowingresponse.

Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (“E&MSD”)


Monitoringofcontractor

Allegation:failingtomonitor

properly the performance of a

maintenance service contractor

fortheair-conditioningsystem

ofamarket–substantiated


System Performance Target

6. E&MSDcontendedthat,amongthe177casesinvolvedintheperiodunderinvestigation,72casesdidnotrequireanyrectificationastheair-conditioningsystemwasfoundtobefunctioningproperlyafterinspection.In69oftheothercases, the cooling capacity met the requirement, although some repairs were necessary.Therewereonly36casesofinsufficientair-conditioningsupply.E&MSD,therefore,consideredthatthetemperatureatthemarketwasmaintainedwithinthestandardrangeformostofthetime.Theair-conditioningsystemwasworkingproperlyingeneral.

7. UndertheServiceLevelAgreementbetweenE&MSDandFEHD,theperformancetargetofair-conditioningsystemwassetatnotlessthan99%serviceavailability.E&MSDindicatedthattheserviceavailabilityofthemarket’sair-conditioningsystemwas99.78%fortheperiodfromNovember2011toOctober2012andmettheperformancetarget.

Monitoring of Contractor

8. E&MSDarguedthattheSummaryReportsdidnotprovidethefullpicture.Hence,itwasunreasonableforustoconcludethatthedataheldbyE&MSDwereriddledwitherrorsaftercross-checkingonlytheSummaryReportsagainstFEHD’srecords,andthensuspectthatE&MSD’smonitoringsystemwasineffective.E&MSDalsokeptthejobcardscompletedbythecontractor’stechnicianson-siteandcountersignedbyFEHD’srepresentatives,aswellastheplantroomlogbookrecordingtheirtimeofarrival/departureandmaintenancedetails.Inmonitoringthecontractor’sperformance,E&MSDmainlyreliedonthejobcards,whichwerecross-checkedagainsttheplantroomlogbookandtheSummaryReports.

Our Comments

9. ItwaswithinE&MSD’sprofessionaljudgementinusingserviceavailabilityforassessingtheperformanceofair-conditioningsystem,sowewouldnotcomment.However,althoughthemarket’sair-conditioningsystemwasabletomaintain99%service availability at all times, it aroused complaints from stall operators almost everydayduringspringandsummerwhentheneedforair-conditioningwasusuallyhigher(paragraph3).WeconsidereditworthwhileforE&MSDtoexaminewhetherthis reflected inadequacy of the current minimum standard to meet the actual demandofstalloperators,orthattherewereotherproblems.Thecontractorwasrequiredtomakerepairseverytwodaysonaverage.Thecosteffectivenessofsuchmaintenanceserviceswasalsoquestionable.

10. OurqueriesregardingthemonitoringsystemofE&MSDwasmoreattributableto its unawareness of the data errors than the errors per se.Whenwestartedourfullinvestigation,E&MSDinitiallyonlysubmittedtheSummaryReportsassupporting documents of its monitoring measures over the contractor’s performance.ItwasonlywhenweaskedE&MSDtoperuseandcommentonourpreliminaryinvestigationresultsthatitprovidedsupplementaryinformation.RegardingtheinconsistenciesweidentifiedbetweenitsrecordsandthedataheldbyFEHD,E&MSDsimplytriedtoshowthattherelevantdataintheSummaryReportswerecorrect.E&MSDwasanxioustoexcuseitself,ratherthanrectifytheproblem.

11. Initsresponsetoourinvestigation,E&MSDdidnotevenrealisethemanyerrorsandomissionsintheSummaryReports.Wedoubtedthatithadregularlycross-checkedvariousrecordswithduediligencetokeeptrackofthecontractor’sperformance,andwhetheritwasaneffectivewaytodoso.

A case of poor staff attitude



12. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintsubstantiated.

13. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatE&MSD:

(1) conductacomprehensiveinspectionofthemarket’sair-conditioningsystem,andconsiderexploringwithFEHDthefeasibilityofreplacingthesystem,whollyorpartially,takingintoaccountthemalfunctionandfaultreports received in future; and

(2) maintainevenclosercontactswithFEHDtoensurethatthefollow-uprecords submitted by the contractor were accurate and improve its existingmonitoringsystemoverthecontractor.


Inmid-January2012,thecomplainantlodgedacomplaintwithFEHDagainstashop(“ShopA”)forsellingprepackagedfoodwithoutlabels,therebyviolatingthelawsonfoodlabelling.

2. On14February,FEHDstaffrepliedtothecomplainantthattheyhadfoundduringtheirsiteinspectionthatmorningsomeprepackagedfoodwithoutlabelsandhadaccordinglyaskedtheshoptowithdrawthefood.Yet,thatveryafternoonand on subsequent occasions, the complainant could still see food without labels on saleattheshop.

3. ThecomplainantallegedthattherehadbeendelayonthepartofFEHDasithadonlyrespondedtohiscomplaintafternearlyamonth(“allegation(1)”).HealsosuspectedthattheDepartmenthadneveractuallyactedonhiscomplaint(“allegation(2)”).

Relevant Regulations

4. UndertheFoodandDrugs(CompositionandLabelling)Regulations,unlessotherwiseexempted,allprepackagedfoodshallbemarkedandlabelledwithsuchinformationasthenameofthefood,“bestbefore”date,quantity,ingredients,andnameandaddressofthemanufacturer.Thereshouldalsobeanutritioninformationlabel.

Procedures for Handling Food Complaints

5. FEHD’soperationguidelinesstipulatethatfoodcomplaintsmustbehandledexpeditiously.StaffofDistrictEnvironmentalHygieneOffices(“DEHOs”)shouldconduct preliminary investigations to collect evidence and submit an interim report withinfourworkingdaystotheCentreforFoodSafety(“CFS”)forfollow-upactions.Dependingontheirregularitiesfound,CFSstaffmayissuewarninglettersto demand rectification of the problem within a specified period, or even institute prosecutions.CFSshouldalsonotifythecomplainantsofcaseprogressandoutcome.

FEHD’s Explanation

6. Inmid-January2012,thelocalDEHOreceivedthecomplainant’sfoodcomplaintthroughthe1823CallCentre.However,itsstafffailedtofollowthe

A case of failure to follow guidelines and delay in handling complaints


Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”)


Foodlabelling

Allegations:(1)delayin

responding to a food

complaint–substantiated;and

(2)failingtotakeactionson

thecase–partially

substantiated

A case of ineffective control

proceduresforhandlingfoodcomplaintsanddidnotactonthecasepromptly.AlthoughtheyhadfoundirregularitiesduringasiteinspectioninearlyFebruary,theydidnotreferthecasetoCFSimmediatelyforfollow-upactions.TheyonlymadeareferraltoCFSinlateAprilwhentheshopwasfoundtohavebreachedthelawagain.FEHDadmittedseriousdelay.Subsequently,betweenMayandAugust,CFSstaffconductedseveralinspectionsatShopAandontwooccasionsfoundfoodwithoutlabelsonsale.Theperson-in-chargewastwiceprosecutedwithpoliceassistance.

7. FEHDindicatedthatbeforeApril2012(i.e.beforewecommencedourinquiryintothecase),itsstaffhadtriedseveraltimestocallthecomplainanttoinformhimoftheactionstakenbytheDEHOanditsinvestigationresults.However,theyonlymanagedtocontacthimonceinmid-February.Meanwhile,theDEHOhadalsofailedtoinformhimoftheinvestigationresultsbetweenmid-FebruaryandlateMarch(i.e.noirregularitieswerefoundatShopA).Lateron,FEHDissuedfivewrittenrepliestothecomplainantbetweenMayandAugustregardingcaseprogressandinvestigationresults.

Our Comments

Allegation (1)

8. ThattheDEHOstaffhadtreatedthefoodcomplaintasjustanordinarycomplaintreflectedtheirlackofunderstandingofthedefinitionofandhandlingproceduresforfoodcomplaints.Thefactthattheydidnotconductasiteinspectionuntilalmostthreeweeksafterreceiptofthefoodcomplaintwasanindicationoftheirsluggishness.

9. Furthermore,theDEHOstaffshouldhavetriedtocontactthecomplainantbyemailwhentheycouldnotreachhimbytelephone.Itwasalsoimproperofthemnottonotifyhimofcaseprogressbetweenmid-FebruaryandlateMarch.

10. TheOmbudsmanconsideredthattherehadindeedbeendelayinFEHD’sresponsetothecomplainant’sfoodcomplaint.Allegation(1)was,therefore,substantiated. Allegation (2)

11. ItwasnottruethatFEHDhadnottakenanyactiononthecase.Nevertheless,wefounditdisappointingthatevenafterourintervention,theDepartmenthadremained sluggish and still failed to promptly deal with the complainant’s food complaintofearlyMay:DEHOstaffdidnotinspecttheshopinaccordancewiththeproceduresandjustreferredthecasetoCFSfourdayslater,whileCFSstaffagainwaitedformorethantendaysbeforeconductinganinspectionandtakingenforcementactions.

12. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(2)partiallysubstantiated.


13. Overall,thecomplaintwassubstantiated.

14. FEHDhassinceapologisedtothecomplainantforitsdelayinhandlinghisfoodcomplaintandfailuretoinformhimoftheprogressofitsinvestigation.TheOmbudsmanurgedFEHDtoremindstaffperiodicallythattheymustfollowitsoperationguidelinestohandlefoodcomplaintspromptlyandconscientiously.Moreover,theyshouldkeepcomplainantsinformedofcaseprogressandoutcomeinatimelyway.



The complainant was hired by a family to film the funeral of their deceased member inthehallofanFEHD-managedcrematorium.Whilehewasfilming,apersonwhoclaimedtobeanFEHDofficerintervenedandaskedhimtoleave.

2. ThecomplainantconsideredthatFEHDshouldhaveallowedthefamilytoapplyfor permission on the spot to film the funeral instead of stopping him from filming withoutconsultingthefamily.Healsocomplainedagainsttheofficerconcernedfornotwearinghisuniformwhileonduty.Furthermore,theofficerhadnotproducedhisstaffidentitycardandwasveryrude.

Relevant Regulations

3. UndertheCremationandGardensofRemembranceRegulation,anypersonwho“wilfullydisturbsorinterfereswithanyfuneralservice”or“behavesinanoisyorunseemlymanner”inanyGovernmentcrematoriumshallbeguiltyofanoffence.

4. PhotographyandfilminginacrematoriumrequirespriorapprovalfromFEHD.This is to ensure that consent has been given by the host family as well as to protect otherusersfrombeingdisturbed.TheDepartmenthaspostednoticesofthatregulationatconspicuouspositionswithinthevenue.FEHDnormallyaccedestorequests from family members for photography and filming of funerals in crematoriums.

Response from FEHD

5. AccordingtoFEHD,theofficerconcernedchangedintohisownclothestemporarilybecausehisuniformwassoakedwithsweatafteroutdoorwork.Healsoforgottowearhisstaffidentitycard.Theofficerexplainedthathewasduty-boundtoforbidunauthorisedphotographyandfilming.Heaskedthecomplainanttoleavethehallbecausethelatterignoredhimandcontinuedwiththefilming.

6. FEHDadmittedimproprietyinthewaytheofficerhadhandledthesituation.Hadhecheckedimmediatelywiththefamilywhetherthecomplainanthadobtained their consent to film the funeral and suggested to them that an application could be made on the spot, this unpleasant incident could have been avoided.FEHDhadapologisedtothecomplainant.

7. Althoughtheofficerdeniedhavingbeenrude,FEHDhadsubsequentlyremindedallstafftobepolitetothepublic.

Our Comments

8. FEHDexercisescontroloverphotographyandfilmingincrematoriumstomaintainorderandpreventdisturbancetofunerals.However,inthisincident,theofficer, instead of trying to resolve the issue in a reasonable manner, merely insisted thatthecomplainantstopthefilming.Theconsequentialdisputebetweenhimandthecomplainantcausedevengreaterdisturbancetothefuneral.

9. WeattributedtheincidenttoFEHDstaff’sinadequateunderstandingoftherationalebehindtheDepartment’sregulationofphotographyandfilmingincrematoriums.Withoutanywrittenguidelines,staffcouldonlyinterprettherelevantrulesintheirownways,resultinginmishandlingofproblems.Furthermore,FEHDhadnotprovidedanyinformationtoletfacilityusersknowthatapplicationcouldbemadeonthespot.

10. Inviewoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(1)substantiated.




Filmingincrematorium

Allegations:(1)unreasonably

forbidding filming in a

crematorium–substantiated;

and(2)anofficerfailingto

wear his uniform and produce

his staff identity card while on

duty and showing poor

manners–partially

substantiated

11. Asregardstheallegationoftheofficer’spoormanners,thecomplainant’seditedvideoclipshowedthattheofficerhadatsomepointsspokenloudlyanddisruptedthesolemnproceedingsofthefuneral.Thoughhisattitudecouldnotbedescribedasrude,hishandlingofthesituationwasclearlyimproper.Besides,itistruethathewasnotinuniformwhileonduty.Norwashewearinghisstaffidentitycard.

12. TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(2)partiallysubstantiated.


13. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintsubstantiated.

14. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatFEHD:

(1) promptlyincludeinitsoperationalguidelinesthearrangementsforphotography and filming of funerals in crematoriums to inform frontline staff of the relevant policy and handling methods; and

(2) provideinformationtothepubliconhowfuneralorganisersandfamiliesofthedeceasedcanseekpermissionforphotographyandfilmingincrematoriums.


On23May2012,whileMrA,employedbythecomplainant,waspruningshrubsforaGovernmentdepartmentatthecentraldividerofamotorway,anFEHDofficerissuedMrAaFixedPenaltyNotice(“FPN”)forlitteringinapublicplace(i.e.depositingthecutleavesontheground).ThecomplainantconsideredtheFPNtohavebeenissuedunreasonablytoMrAandwrotetoFEHDtwodayslatertoraiseanobjection(“theObjectionLetter”).

2. HavingheardnothingfromtheDepartmentotherthananacknowledgmentof30May,thecomplainantpaidthefixedpenaltyon12June,justbeforethe21-daydeadlineforpayment.

3. On13and28June,thecomplainantsenttworeminderstoFEHDforareplytotheObjectionLetter.Stillreceivingnoresponse,thecomplainantlodgedacomplaintwiththisOfficeagainstFEHDon18July.

Response from FEHD

4. FEHDguidelinesstipulatedthatacomplaintshouldbeacknowledgedwithin10calendardaysofreceiptandasubstantivereplygivenwithin30calendardays.FEHDissuedanacknowledgementtothecomplainanton30May,asitconsideredtheObjectionLettertobeacomplaintaboutimproperissueoftheFPNaswellasanattempttodisputeMrA’sliabilityfortheoffence. 5. FEHDrecognisedthatanydisputeagainstanFPN,whichhasa21-daydeadlineforpayment,mustbedealtwithswiftly.However,adisputeofliabilityforanoffenceshouldberaisedbytheoffenderhimself.On6July,itsstafftriedtocontactthecomplainantbytelephone,butinvain.On26July,FEHDwrotetothecomplainantandsuggestedthatMrA,theoffender,shouldraisethedisputeinhisowncapacity.



Littering charge

Allegation:failingtorespond

to an objection to a littering

charge–substantiated

A case of unclear guidelines and rigid staff attitude


6. FEHDadmittedthatthecasehadbeenhandledveryunsatisfactorily;inparticular:

• thestaffconcernedhadfailedtoissueaninterimreplytothecomplainantwhen a substantive reply was not possible within the pledged time; and

• theletterof26Julywasveryuntimelyand,therefore,unacceptable. 7. OntheadviceoftheDepartmentofJustice,FEHDsubsequentlywithdrewtheFPN.

Our Comments and Conclusion

8. ItwasclearthatFEHDhadfailedtohandlethecomplainant’scaseproperlyandseriouslydelayedrespondingtotheObjectionLetter.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredthecomplaintsubstantiated.

9. FEHDhassinceremindedstafftostrictlyadheretodepartmentalguidelinesinhandlingdisputesofliabilityforfixedpenaltyandcomplaints.


Since2009,thecomplainanthadrepeatedlycomplainedtoBDandFEHDrespectivelyagainsttheownerofaground-levelshop(“ShopA”)ofabuildingforillegallyconstructingtwoshops(“ShopsBandC”)alongthesidewalloftheshopandencroachingonthepavement,andagainsttheoperatorsofShopsBandCforplacingtheirmerchandiseonthepavementsuchthatpedestrianshadtotaketheriskofsteppingoutontothecarriageway.

2. Lateron,inNovember2011,thecomplainantalsosoughthelpfromLandsD,butwastoldthattheresponsibilityrestedwithFEHDandBD.He,therefore,complainedtothisOfficeagainstthethreedepartments:FEHDforfailingtohandleeffectivelytheproblemofobstructionofthepavement;BDfornottakingenforcementactionagainstthetwounauthorisedbuildingworks(“UBW”)items,i.e.ShopsBandC;andLandsDforshirkingitsresponsibilityandfailingtotakeactiontostoptheoccupationofGovernmentlandbythetwoshops.

Jurisdictions of the Three Departments

FEHD – Street Obstruction and Unlicensed Hawking

3. FEHDcantakethefollowingactiononproblemswithinitsjurisdiction:ifthestreetobstructionisnotserious,FEHDwillissueawarningtothepersonsconcernedand demand that the objects causing obstruction be removed within a reasonable time.Immediateenforcementactionwillbetakenagainstrepeatedoffenderswithoutfurtherwarning.Incasetheobstructionisserious,FEHDwillinvokerelevant laws to prosecute immediately the parties concerned, including any unlicensedstreethawkersinvolved.

BD – UBW Items on the External Walls of Buildings

4. BDcanservearemovalorderonthetitleowneroftheexternalwallofabuildingifUBWitemsarefoundthere.PriortoApril2011,BDhadapolicy,adoptedafterwidepublicconsultation,totakepriorityenforcementactionagainstunauthorised structures newly built or posing an obvious threat or imminent danger tolifeandproperty.InApril2011,thepolicywasenhancedtoinclude“UBWitemsprojectingfromtheexternalwallsofbuildings”asstructuresthatwarrantremovalwithpriority.

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), Buildings Department (“BD”) and Lands Department (“Lands D”)

CaseNos.OMB2011/4312A,B

&C–Unauthorisedstructures

and illegal operation of shops

Allegations:

FEHD–failingtostopthe

obstruction of pavement by two

illegallybuiltshops–

unsubstantiated

BD–failingtotakeenforcement

action against two illegally built

shops–unsubstantiated

LandsD–shirkingresponsibility

andfailingtotakeenforcement

action against the unlawful

occupation of Government land

bytwoillegallybuiltshops–

substantiated

A case of serious delay in responding to an objection to a charge


5. However,UBWitemsonpavementswhichareGovernmentlandarenotsubjecttotheBuildingsOrdinance.Hence,BDcannottakeanyenforcementaction.

Lands D – Unlawful Occupation of Government Land

6. ThosewhooccupyGovernmentlandwithoutauthorisation(includingillegalconstructionofplatformsonapublicpavement)willbeservedanorderbyLandsDdemanding cessation of such occupation before a specified date, after which the DepartmentcanremovetheUBWitemordealwithitbyothermeans.Inaddition,aninter-departmentalagreementprovidesthatforcasesinvolvingillegalextensionorstreetobstructionbyashop,BDwoulddealwiththeextendedstructuresthataresupportedbyabuilding,whileLandsDwouldtackleanystandaloneandimmovableplatformerectedonthepavement.

Sequence of Events

7. Inearly2008,BDreceivedananonymouscomplaintregardingShopsBandC.Sincetheydidnotposeanyobviousthreatorimminentdangertolifeandproperty,accordingtoBD’spolicyatthattime,theywerenotUBWitemsthatcalledforimmediateremoval.BD,therefore,didnottakeenforcementaction.

8. InAugustandSeptember2011,FEHDreceivedreportsonstreetobstructionbyShopB.Itsstaffconductedanumberofinspectionsafterwardsandissuedtwoverbal and two written warnings to its operator for obstruction of the pavement by hismerchandise.

9. InlateOctober2011,theDistrictLandsOffice(“DLO”)ofLandsDreceivedthecomplainant’scomplaintagainstShopsBandC.Afterinspection,DLOstaffconsideredthetwoshopstobestructuresextendingfromtheexternalwallofthebuildingtothepavement.InNovember,thecasewasreferredtoBDandFEHDforfollow-upaction.

10. FEHDstaffconductedseveralinspectionsandfoundthatbothshopsplacedtheirmerchandiseonthepavement.WrittenwarningswereissuedandtheoperatorofShopCwasprosecutedfor“obstructingpublicplaces”.

11. InNovember,BDconductedasiteinspectionanddiscoveredthatShopsBandCactuallycomprisedsixUBWitems(itemsItoVI).Amongthem,itemsI,IIandIII(whichincludedplatforms)wereerectedonthepavementwhileitemsIV,VandVI(whichincludedtheretractablecanopies)wereprojectionsfromtheexternalwallofthebuilding.Thepavementhadbecomemuchnarrowerasaresultofencroachmentbythetwoshops.BDdecidedtotakeimmediateenforcementactionagainstitemsIV,VandVIinaccordancewithitsenhancedpolicy,whileaskingDLOtoremoveitemsI,IIandIIIintandem.

12. However,DLOmaintainedthatnotallofitemsI,IIandIIIsatonGovernmentland.Initsview,thesixUBWitemsformedonebigunauthorisedstructureextendingfromtheexternalwallofthebuildingandsoBDshouldbetheactiondepartment.Intheevent,DLOdiscussedthematterwithBDandagreedinMarch2012totakejointenforcementactionwiththelatteragainstitemI.NoticeswerealsopostedonitemsIIandIIIinApril,orderingthepartiesconcernedtoremovethosepartsoccupyingGovernmentlandbythedatespecified.

Our Comments

FEHD

13. ShopsBandClookedlikeordinaryshops.Consequently,beforethecomplainanttookthemattertothisOfficeinOctober2011,FEHDstaffdidnotnotice during inspections that their operators were actually engaged in unlicensed hawkingonthestreetandsoonlytookactionontheobstructionofthepavementbytheirmerchandise.Wefoundthisexcusable.


14. TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredthecomplaintagainstFEHDunsubstantiated.

15. Nevertheless,afterreceivingDLO’sreferralofthecaseinNovember2011,FEHDshouldrealisethatthetwoshopswereactuallyunauthorisedstructuresonthepavement.Itshould,therefore,alsoinstituteprosecutionagainstunlicensedhawkingonthestreet,insteadofcontinuingtofocusonlyonstreetobstruction.ThisshowedinadequatealertnessonthepartofFEHD.

BD

16. ThatBDdecidednottotakeenforcementactionagainsttheUBWitemsin2008wasinaccordancewithitspolicyatthattime.ThecomplaintagainstBDwas,therefore,unsubstantiated.

17. Inlate2011,BDconductedanothersiteinspectionandtookimmediateenforcementactionagainstitemsIVtoVIaccordingtoitsenhancedpolicy.ItfurthersuggestedthatDLOtakeactionagainsttheotherUBWitemsinparallel.Weconsidereditshandlingofthecasereasonableandpractical.

Lands D

18. LandsDisempoweredbylawtodealwithoccupationofpublicpavementsbyUBWitemsandshouldhavecooperatedwithBDinresolvingtheproblem.Nevertheless,DLOobviouslyignoreditsowndutyandmerelyreferredthecasetootherdepartments.

19. TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredthecomplaintagainstLandsDsubstantiated.HewaspleasedtonotethatDLOhadeventuallyremediedthesituationbytakinglandcontrolactionagainstitemsItoIII.

Recommendations

20. TheOmbudsmanmadethefollowingrecommendations:

(1) BDandLandsDshouldmonitorcloselythedemolitionoftheUBWitems;and

(2) FEHDshouldstepuptrainingandsupervisionofitsfrontlinestafftoensurestrictenforcementagainstunlicensedhawkingthatinvolvesUBW.

21. ThisOfficewaspleasedthatallthesixUBWitemshadfinallybeendemolishedinJune2012.


A case of lack of dutifulness and alertness


Thecomplainant,agraduatestudent,frequentlyvisitedthePublicRecordsOfficeSearchRoomunderGRSforresearchpurpose.SheclaimedtohaveseenfromtimetotimeSearchRoomuserstakingphotographsofarchivalmaterialsthemselveswithoutpayingafee.NeitherGRSstaffandwebsitenorSearchRoomnotices,however,everinformedusersthattheycoulddoso.InearlyJuly2012,shetoldGRSstaffwhatshesawandsuggestedthatnoticesbepostedtopublicisethefreeself-servephotographyservice.However,GRStooknoactionevenbytheendofJuly.

2. Later,thecomplainantaskedGRSstaffforpermissiontophotographsome2,000pagesofmaterialscontainedineightGovernmentrecordfiles,butwastoldthat where ownership of copyright was not clear, photography was prohibited but photocopying(atafeeof$3.7perpage)wasallowed.However,thestaffcouldnotprovideanyjustificationforsucharestriction.

3. ThecomplainantsubsequentlydiscussedwithtwootherGRSstaffmembers(MsAandMrB)severaltimessuchissuesasphotocopying/photographyofarchivalmaterials,photocopyingfee,copyrightandroyalty.Nevertheless,thetwostaffmembers’opinionsdiffered.EventuallyMrBsaidthatthephotocopyingfee,charged at a level determined by the Treasury, was royalty payment; and that whether a piece of archival material could be photographed had nothing to do with itscopyright.Healsoindicatedthatuserscouldnotphotographnon-Governmentmaterials.Ifacopywasneeded,onlyphotocopyingwasallowed.ThecomplainantarguedthatundertheCopyrightOrdinance(“CO”),takingphotographsofmaterialsforresearchpurposewouldnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright.MrBrepliedthathewasnotconversantwiththeOrdinance.

4. ThecomplainantwasdissatisfiedthattheadministrationofGRSshouldbesomessyandthatGRSstaffmemberswerenotfamiliarwithlegislationrelatedtotheirwork.Furthermore,thewayGRShandledusers’requestsforphotographingarchival materials might jeopardise the rights of researchers to reproduce such materials.

Response from GRS

Methods of Reproducing Images of Archival Materials

5. “Governmentarchivalrecords”heldbythePublicRecordsOfficeofGRSareopentopublicinspection,pursuanttothePublicRecords(Access)Rules1996.

6. Membersofthepublicwhowishtoobtainacopyofarchivalmaterialscandecidetodosobywaysfreeofcharge(suchascopyingtheinformationbyhandorinputtingitintoanotebookcomputerthemselves)orbyusingfee-chargingservicesprovidedbyGRS(suchasphotocopyingormicrofilming).PriortoMay2009,GRSmightallowphotographsbetakenunderspecialcircumstances(e.g.theprintedmaterialistoofragileforphotocopying).ThedifferentwaysofreproducingarchivalmaterialshavebeensetoutintherulesonusingthePublicRecordsOfficeSearchRoom(“theRules”).

7. Nevertheless,inrecentyears,usershadbeenfoundtakingphotographsofarchivalmaterialswithoutpermission.Inviewofthis,GRSdecidedtorelaxtherestrictionsonself-servephotographyserviceinMay2009.Asetofinternalguidelines was drawn up, stating that users could use their own equipment to photographarchivalmaterialsintheSearchRoomfreeofcharge.Photographicreproduction was limited to those Government records and publications already opentopublicinspectionandassessedtobeinastatesuitableforphotography.

Government Records Service (“GRS”)


Reproductionofarchival

materials

Allegation:failingtoinform

members of the public that they

couldtakephotographsof

archival materials themselves

free of charge; and providing

different and confusing

interpretations of the copyright

legislation to the public by staff

members unfamiliar with the

law–substantiated


Photocopying, Photography and Copyright

8. GRSdidnotimposeanyrestrictiononthenumberofphotocopiesausercouldmakeortheextentofapieceofmaterialallowedforphotocopying.ItwasbecausephotocopyingwasdonebyGRSstaffmembers,whoknewhowtohandleandprotectarchivalmaterials.Forphotographyserviceprovidedonaself-servebasis,however,archivalmaterialswouldhaveabiggerriskofbeingdamaged.Therewerealsocopyrightconcerns.GRS,therefore,restrictedmaterialsforphotographytoGovernmentrecordsandpublications.

9. Uponreceiptofthecomplainant’senquiries,GRSsoughttheIntellectualPropertyDepartment’s(“IPD”)adviceonthecopyrightissueinJulyandAugust2012.IPDpointedoutthatasfarastheCOwasconcerned,thereexistednodifferencebetweenphotocopyingandphotography.Besides,thedefinitionsof“publicrecords”undertheAccessRules1996andtheCOweresimilar.Consequently,suchrecordscouldbecopiedandthecopiessuppliedtoanyonewithoutinfringementofcopyright.Besides,non-GovernmentdocumentsannexedtothefilestransferredtoGRSbyvariousGovernmentdepartmentscouldbeconsidered“publicrecords”andhencereproduced,eveniftheywerenotinGovernmentcopyright.Nonetheless,thirdpartyinformationnotinGovernmentcopyrighthadtobehandledcarefully.GRSsubsequentlystandardisedthescopeofphotocopyingandphotographyservices.

10. InviewofIPD’sopinions,theRuleswerealsorevisedinJulyandSeptember2012tostateclearlythat“apartfromscanners,personalphotographicdevices(e.g.digitalcameras)maybeusedfortakingphotosofsomeoftheholdings”.Priorapprovalofthedutyarchivistmustbeobtainedandanapplicationformbefilledin.Subjecttotheuser’sconsenttocertainconditions(e.g.copiesofthematerialsthusobtainedwouldonlybeusedforresearchpurpose),photographyofnon-Governmentcopyrightedmaterialswouldbepermitted.

Response to the Complainant’s Allegations

11. ItwasappropriateforMsA,whosedutywasnotrelatedtoaccesstoarchivalmaterials,toadvisethecomplainanttocontactSearchRoomstaffregardingwhichmaterialswereallowedforphotography.MrBfolloweddepartmentalguidelinesinexplainingtothecomplainantthatshecouldonlyphotographGovernmentdocumentsandpublications.HealsoadvisedheronthegeneralprinciplesoftheCOandguidelinesontheself-servephotographyservice.AshisinterpretationoftheOrdinancewasdifferentfromthecomplainant’s,hesoughttheadviceofIPD.He denied having said that the photocopying fee was royalty payment, or that “whetherapieceofarchivalmaterialcouldbephotographedhadnothingtodowithitscopyright”.OnceheobtainedIPD’sadvice,MrBinformedthecomplainantthatshecouldphotographallthematerialsenclosedintheeightfilesinquestion.

12. Besides,theself-servephotographyservicewasincludedintheRulesandtheservicewasalsointroducedtoparticipantsinGRSworkshops.Inresponsetothecomplainant’ssuggestions,theRuleshadbeenrevisedforbetterservice.

13. GRSconsideredthatthecomplainanthadbeenrenderedproperassistance.Her enquiries were adequately responded to and her suggestions actively followed up.ItwasnotacaseofpooradministrationandGRSneverneglectedtheprotectionresearchersshouldenjoyundertheCO.


14. GRSissuedtheinternalguidelinesin2009butdidnotrevisetheRulesintandem.Asaresult,userswouldnotknowthattheymightusetheirownequipmenttophotographarchivalmaterials.Infact,theRuleswereessentiallyguidelinesonusingtheSearchRoom.Theirrevisionmightnothelpmuchindrawingtheattentionofuserstotheself-servephotographyservice.


15. Asallegedbythecomplainant,neitherGRSstaffandwebsitenorSearchRoomnoticesinformedusersoftheself-servephotographyservice.Consequently,theymighthavetospendmoneyonphotocopying.AlthoughtheservicewouldbementionedatGRSworkshops,onlyparticipantswouldlearnaboutit.Thatwasunfairtothegeneralpublic.

16. MrB’sexplanationontheself-servephotographyservicewasinlinewithGRS’sprevailinginternalguidelines.ThefactwasthatGRSimposeditsrestrictionsonphotography service without noticing that both photocopying and photography of archivalmaterialswouldhavecopyrightimplications.TheyonlyconsultedIPDwhenthecomplainantraisedherqueries.GiventheGRSmanagement’slackoffullunderstandingofthecopyrightissue,itwasonlytobeexpectedthatitsfrontlinestaffwouldnotbeabletoexplainitclearlytothecomplainant.

Conclusion

17. GRShadfailedtouseappropriatechannelstoinformSearchRoomusersofallthe legal methods to reproduce archival materials, such that they might not be awareoftheself-servephotographyservice.Furthermore,theDepartmentconsultedIPDoncopyrightissuesonlyuponthecomplainant’senquiries.Thatwasclearlyanoversight.

18. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintsubstantiated.

Recommendation

19. WerecommendedGRStopublishaseparatesetofguidelinescoveringallthemethodsofreproducingtheimagesofarchivalmaterials.Thiswouldhelppublicisetherelatedservicesamongusersandmakeiteasierforfrontlinestafftoexplainthemtothepublicsuchthatsimilarcomplaintscouldbeavoided.


InApril2011,thecomplainant’sfather(“MrA”)wasadvisedthatasurgicaloperation was necessary when attending his regular medical appointment at a publichospital(“HospitalB”).MrAintendedtohavetheoperationinaprivatehospitalandsignedaPublicPrivateInterface–ElectronicPatientRecordSharingPilotProject(“PPI-ePR”)formtofacilitateaccesstohismedicalrecordswithHAhospitalsandclinicsbytheprivatehospital.However,MrAdidnotreceivetheaccesscodeuntilJulythatyear.

2. OnbehalfofMrA,thecomplainantchasedHAforprogressinwritingbutreceivednoreply.HewasdissatisfiedwithHA’sinefficiencyandallegedthatitsprocessingofthePPI-ePRapplicationhadcauseddelayinhisfather’streatment.

Our Findings

Episode Numbers and Move Episode Cases

3. ForeveryvisittoHAhospitalsorclinics,patientswillbegivenanepisodenumber which carries their medical history and the medical information about that particularvisitafterconsultation.Suchnumberisconnectedtothepatientandtherefore should not be reused for other patients even if the patient concerned did notshowupforappointment.

Hospital Authority (“HA”)


Delayinprocessingapplication


processing a patient’s

application for joining the

PublicPrivateInterface–

ElectronicPatientRecord

SharingPilotProject,rendering

his record inaccessible when

needed–substantiated;and

(2)failingtoacknowledgea

letter from the patient’s family

enquiring about the progress

oftheapplication–partially

substantiated

A case of lack of careful consideration in service provision


4. ThoughHA’sPatientMasterIndexGuidelines(“PMIGuidelines”)issuedin1995advisedhospitalsagainstreuseofepisodenumbers,thepracticeofmovinganepisodenumberpre-createdforacertainpatienttoanotherpatientwhentheintendedpatientfailedtoshowup(knownasa“moveepisode”)continuedinsomehospitals.Thereareotherscenarioswhere“moveepisode”isnecessary,includingsamepatientwithmultipleidentifiers(e.g.apatientreceivingtreatmentatdifferentHAinstitutionsusingdifferentidentificationdocuments)anddifferentpatientswithsameidentifier(e.g.apatientseekingemergencyserviceusinghisrelative’sIdentityCard).

5. Wherethereisa“moveepisode”,a“yellowflag”willpopupinthePPI-ePRsystem,indicatingthatfurtherverificationofthepatient’spersonaldataisrequired.Beforeclearingtheyellowflag,theclinicaldepartmentsinvolvedarerequiredtoverify and confirm if the data are correctly assigned so that the accuracy and completenessofpatients’personaldataandmedicalinformationunderthePPI-ePRplatformcouldbesafeguarded.

The Present Case

6. InJune2006,MrAmissedanappointmentatanotherpublichospital(“HospitalC”).Theepisodenumberpre-createdforhimwasreusedforanotherpatient,resultingina“moveepisode”.WhenhesubmittedhisPPI-ePRapplicationinApril2011,ayellowflagpoppedupinthesystem,indicatinganeedtoverifythedata.InJune2011,uponconsultationwithHA,HospitalCwasadvisedtosortoutallclinicaldata,includingdrugallergyinformationbeforeremovingtheyellowflag.AfterHospitalChadcompletedthedataverificationprocessinJuly2011,HospitalBwasinformedthattheyellowflaghadbeenremovedandwasreadyforpatientenrolment.ThePPI-ePRProgrammeOffice(“PO”)thenreleasedtheauthorisationcodetoMrA.

Response from HA

Allegation (1)

7. AccordingtoHA,anapplicationforPPI-ePRwouldnormallybecompletedwithintwoweeks.Thepresentcasetook70daysbecauseithadtocollatedatafromtwohospitalsandoneofthemneededtimetofurthersortoutsomemixed-updrugallergyinformationofthetwopatientsinvolved.Moreover,giventhehugenumberofyellowflagcaseseachyear,HAwouldnotspeciallycallapatienttoverifyhisdatabutwoulddosoduringhisfollow-upappointment.Inthiscase,however,thedoctoratHospitalBfailedtodosoduringMrA’sfollow-upappointment.HAundertooktoreminditsstafftoverifypatients’dataduringtheirfollow-upconsultations.

8. Asregardsreuseofepisodenumbers,HAhadremindedHospitalCtoobservethePMIGuidelines.HAhadalsonotifiedhospitalstoclearoutstandingPPI-ePRcasesrelatedto“moveepisode”,revisedguidelinestoenhancecomplianceofmanaging“moveepisode”cases,andissuedremindersurginghospitalsnottoreuseepisodenumbers.

9. HAstressedthatthetraditionalmeansofdoctor-to-doctorcommunicationwasstilltheusualandcommonlyadoptedpracticeinHongKong.Inthiscase,thedoctoratHospitalBhadwrittenareferralletterdescribingthedetailsaboutMrA’smedicalinformationsothatMrAcouldseekexpertopinionandfurthermanagement from his private doctor while awaiting completion of the data verificationprocedures.


Allegation (2)

10. InMay2011,thecomplainantcalledPOtoenquireabouttheprogressofMrA’sPPI-ePRapplication.Inresponsetohistelephoneenquiry,POstaffexplainedthatMrA’smedicalrecordswereunderreviewandshewouldreverttothecomplainantoncetheenrolmentwascompleted.POfollowedupbychasingHospitalCforthedataverificationprocess.Thenextday,thecomplainantalsowrotetoPOrequestingassistancetospeedupprocessingoftheapplication.AsthePOstaffbelievedthatherverbalexplanationwouldsuffice,shedidnotissueanywrittenreplytothecomplainant.

11. FromHA’sperspective,POhadtakenthenecessaryactioninlinewithcurrentpracticeinprocessingMrA’sapplication.Nevertheless,HAadmittedthattheprocessing time could have been shortened and the complaint handling procedures improved.

Our Comments

12. WeacceptedthatitwasprudentforHAtoverifythepatientdataupondetectionofa“moveepisode”.Whiletheusualverificationtimewastwoweeks,HAtook70daysinthiscase.Moreover,itwasnotuntilHAissuedaninstructionthatHospitalCstartedtosortoutandverifyalltheclinicaldata.Inviewoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(1)substantiated.

13. AstowhetherHAhadfailedtoacknowledgethecomplainant’sletter,wenotethatthePOstaffhadexplainedthesituationwhenthecomplainantcalledandenquiredabouttheprogress.However,onreceiptofhissubsequentletter,thePOstaff could have clarified with him on whether his concerns had been addressed in thetelephoneconversation.ThecomplainantonlymanagedtogettheupdatesfromMrA’sfollow-upconsultationwithHospitalBandtheprivatehospital.

14. Weconsideredthatalthoughthedelaywasmainlycausedbythetimerequiredtoverifydatainvolvedinthe“moveepisode”cases,andHAmightbereluctanttorevealthatMrA’scaseinvolvedthemix-upofpatients’information,itshouldhavetakentheinitiativetorevealthegenuineanddetailedcauseofthedelaytothecomplainantinsteadofwaitinguntilhefiledacomplainttothisOfficeinAugust2011.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(2)partiallysubstantiated.


15. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

16. WhileHAhasimplementedsomemeasureswithaviewtoclearingupyellowflagcases,TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatHAfurtheradoptthefollowingremedial measures:

(1) tourgefrontlinemedicalstafftoclearanyyellowflagsinapatient’srecords upon attendance of the medical appointment by the patient; and

(2) toreviewthechecksandbalancesmechanismtoensurestrictadherencetothePMIGuidelines.

A case of delay and staff’s failure to follow guidelines



Thecomplainantwasthetenantofapublichousingunit(“FlatA”).Atabout 11pmon8June2010,shefoundthebalconyofFlatAfloodedwithwatergushingoutfromapipe.Shecalledthemanagementofficeofthepropertyserviceagent(“PSA”)andthePoliceatonce.However,staffofthePSAarrivedatthescenemorethananhourlaterandarguedwithheroverthesourceoftheflooding.Themainflushingwatervalvewasfinallyturnedoffat1am.

2. Thefollowingevening(i.e.on9June),wateragaincamegushingoutfromtheflushingwaterpipeawaitingrepairs.ThePSAstaffarrivedatFlatAhalfanhourafterreceivingthecomplainant’scallandturnedofftheflushingwatervalve.

3. ThecomplainantwasdissatisfiedthatthePSAstaffshouldhavecometoherassistancesolateduringbothfloodingincidents.Thedelayshadcauseddamagestoherproperty.Lateron,shesoughtcompensationfromtheHongKongHousingAuthority(“HKHA”).Nevertheless,inanattempttocoverupitsmistakes,thePSAprovidedfalseinformationtothelossadjuster(“LA”)oftheinsurer,suchthattheLAconcludedthatHKHAandthePSAhadperformedtheirdutiesandsoadvisedagainstcompensation.WhileHDlateronrefundedseveralthousanddollarsofrentals to her, showing admission to negligence, it fell short of paying her due compensationforthedamagestoherproperty.

Response from HD

Course of Events

4. Inlatenightof8June,thePSAstaffondutyarrivedatFlatAthreeminutesafterreceivingthecomplainant’scall.Whentheysawwatercomingoutfromtheflushing water pipe, they turned off the section gate valve located on another floor, effectivelycuttingoffflushingwatersupply12minuteslater.ThestaffstayedatFlatAforabout30minutestohelpclearupthewaterandinformthecomplainantofrepairsarrangementsbeforeleaving.TwopoliceofficershadalsobeentoFlatAtolookintotheincident.Themanagementofficepostedanoticeatthebuildingafterwards,warningthetenantsnottoturnontheflushingwatervalvethemselves.

5. Intheeveningof9June,PSAstaffarrivedatFlatAtwominutesafterreceiptofthecomplaint.Theydiscoveredthatthevalvethathadbeenturnedoffthenightbefore was turned on and immediately turned off both the section gate valve and themainvalve.Thistime,thestaffspentalmosttwohoursatFlatAandhelpedclearupthewater.Twopoliceofficerswerealsopresentthatevening.

6. ThecomplainantlateronappliedtoHDforrehousing.ShealsoaskedforarefundoftherentalforFlatAfromthetimeofthetwoincidentstilllateNovember(i.e.whenshemovedtothenewflat).Inaddition,shedemandedcompensationfromHKHAandthePSAfortheflooding.

Allegation (1)

7. Withthecomplainant’sconsent,HDhadaskedthePolicetoprovidetherecordsconcerningthetwofloodingincidents.TherecordsshowedthatpoliceofficersarrivedatFlatAabout20minutesafterreceiptofthecomplainant’scallforhelp.There,theysawPSAstaffhelpclearingupthefloodwater.Therewasnorecordofanyargumentsbetweenthecomplainantandthestaff.Besides,informationsuchastheincidentreportsofthePSAandthelogbookentriesofthesecurity control room for the estate concerned did not contradict with the police reports.HDconsideredthattherewasnodelayonthepartofthePSAinhandlingtheincidents.




Compensationforflooding

Allegations:(1)delaybyHD’s

property service agent in

following up two incidents of

bursting of a flushing water

pipe at the complainant’s

publichousingunit;(2)

provision of false information

by the agent to the loss

adjuster of the insurer in an

attempt to cover up its

mistakes;and(3)denialof

liabilitybyHDtoduly

compensate the complainant

regarding the two flooding

incidents–substantiatedother

than alleged

Allegation (2)

8. TheLAappointedbytheinsurerofHKHAhadinvestigatedintothetwofloodingincidents.Resultsindicatedthatthefloodingon8JunewascausedbythesuddenburstingofaflushingwaterpipeinthebalconyofFlatA;whilethaton9June was the result of the section gate valve having been turned on without authorisation.AsbothincidentswerenotwithinthecontrolofHKHAorthePSA,negligencewasoutofthequestion.

9. HDconfirmedthatthePSAhadpostednoticesforthetenants’informationafter both incidents, reminding them not to turn on the flushing water valves themselves.TheDepartmenthadalsointerviewedthePSAstaffconcernedandfoundthattheirstatementsaccordedwithrecordsofthePSAandthePolice.TherewasnoevidenceoftheirhavinggivenfalseinformationtotheLA.

Allegation (3)

10. HDaddedthatthecomplainant’srequestforrehousingwasgrantedongroundsofherhealth.ShehadsignedthetenancyagreementforthenewflatinlateNovember2010.Lateron,sheaskedforarefundofFlatA’srentalbetweenearlyJuneandlateNovemberbutwasrefused.

11. Asforthecomplainant’sclaimthatHDhadrefundedtoherseveralthousanddollars’rental,HDclarifiedthatthemoneywasactuallypaidoutofthePSA’sowncharityfundtorelievethecomplainantofherfinancialdifficulty.Thoughwell-intentioned,theactionwasindeedimproperasithadnotsoughtHD’spriorapprovalandgavethewrongimpressionofadmissiontoliabilityfortheincidents.

Our Comments

Allegation (1)

12. ThePSAstaffarrivedatFlatAshortlyuponnotificationbythecomplainantandhelpedclearupthewaterthere.Therewasnodelayontheirpart.Follow-upactionsbythePSAwereinaccordancewithHDguidelinesandnothingindicatedanyimproprieties.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(1)unsubstantiated.

Allegation (2)

13. WeconsideredthatHD’sexplanationwassupportedbythePolicerecords,theincidentreportsofthePSAandthestatementsbythePSAstaffconcerned.TherewasnoevidencetoprovethatthePSAhadgivenfalsestatementstotheLA.TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(2)unsubstantiated.

Allegation (3)

14. ThisOfficeacceptedHD’sexplanationregardingthecomplainant’sclaimthatshehadreceivedarentalrefundfromtheDepartment.TheLAhadbeencommissionedtoassessliabilityfortheincidents.ThatthecomplainantreceivedtherefundfromthePSAdidnotimplythatHKHAwouldtakeupliabilityforthepropertydamage.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(3)unsubstantiated.

Other Problems Revealed

15. ThePSAfailedtoexplainclearlytothecomplainantthattherefundwasagood-willgesture,andthecontentoftheagreementbetweenthecomplainantandthePSAseemedtorespondtothecomplainant’srequestforarentalrefund.ItisthereforeunderstandablethatshetookittomeanHD’sadmissiontoliabilityandwillingnesstomakecompensation.WeconsideredthePSA’shandlingmethodquestionable.Ontheotherhand,thecasealsoreflectedHD’sinadequate


monitoringofPSAs,suchthattheycouldenterintoprivateagreementswithpublichousingtenantsandgivethemfinancialassistancewithoutHD’sknowledge.Thisledtomisunderstandingeventually.

Conclusion

16. TheOmbudsmanconsideredtheretobeinadequaciesregardingHD’smonitoringofPSAs.Overall,thiscomplaintagainstHDwassubstantiatedotherthanalleged.

Recommendations


(1)HDshouldreviewthecurrentguidelinesonmonitoringofPSAsandconsidertosetupamechanismtoregulatePSAs’provisionoffinancialassistance to public housing tenants; and

(2) thatthesecondfloodingwascausedbythesectiongatevalvebeingturned on without authorisation was an indication of an inadequacy in thedesignofthevalve.HD,therefore,shouldreviewthematterandmakeimprovementsinthisregard.


The complainant’s elder brother, who urgently needed medical treatment, was transferredbacktoHongKongbyamainlandambulanceviaabordercontrolpoint.Thecomplainantcalledthe1868hotline(“thehotline”)ofImmDtorequestanambulancetostandbyatthecontrolpointtotakeherbrothertothehospital.Shecalledthenumberthatthehotlinestaffprovidedtoseekhelpfromthedutyroomofthecontrolpoint,onlytobetoldthatitwasnottherightplacetocall.

2. Subsequently,shemadeseveralcallstothehotlineandwaspromisedarrangementforanambulance.Atthehotlinestaff’srequest,sheprovidedtheestimatedarrivaltime.However,theambulanceonHongKongsidewasyettoarrive after she and her brother had reached the control point and completed the clearance.Shethencalledthehotlineagaintourgeforearlyarrival.Theambulancefinallyarrived20minutesaftertheyhadenteredtheterritoryandtookthepatienttothehospital.Unfortunately,thecomplainant’sbrotherdiedthatnight.

3. ThecomplainantconsideredthatImmDhadnothandledhercaseproperly,resultingindelayeddeliveryofherbrothertothehospitalformedicaltreatment.SherequestedaninvestigationbyImmD.WhenshelaterfoundthatitwasthePoliceandnotImmDthatcalledtheambulance,sheconsideredtheImmDstafftohavefailedtoactaspromised.Ifcallinganambulancewasoutsidethescopeofthehotlineservice,thestaffconcernedshouldhaveexplainedittoherandadvisedherwheretoseekhelp.SherefusedtoacceptImmD’sexplanationthatitsfailureto provide a recording of the telephone conversation on that day was due to a suspensionofpoweratImmigrationToweratthetime.ShesuspectedthatImmDwashidingthetruth.


Response from Imm D

Hotline’s Automatic Telephone System

4. InAugust2005,ImmDlaunchedits24-hourhotlineservicetoprovideassistancetoHongKongresidents.Toimproveitsserviceandincreasethecapacitytodealwithmajorincidentsoutsidetheterritory,ImmDintroducedanautomatictelephonesystemforthehotline(“thesystem”)inDecember2010toaddmoretelephone lines and install new functions such as automatic call distribution and recording.Asthetelephonesystemdidnothaveabackuppowersupply,ImmDhad to divert all the calls to its direct lines through the call forwarding function to maintainserviceattimesofitsmonthlythree-hourroutinemaintenance,anysuspensionofpowersupplyorpowerfailure.

Handling Public Enquiries and Requests for Assistance

5. Forgeneralenquiries,ImmDwillonlymakesimpledataentriesforstatisticalpurposeandnopersonalparticularsorotherdetailswillbekept.Thehotlinestaffwillnotkeeprecordsofrequestsforassistanceifsuchrequestscanberesolvedimmediatelyandrequirenofollow-upaction.Detailsarerecordedwherethecallerrequests an ambulance for any Hong Kong resident who will be arriving in Hong KongfromtheMainland.Thehotlinestaffwillthencontacttherelevantbordercontrolpoint.Casessuccessfullyreferredtocontrolpointsforfollow-uparetreatedasbeingsettledandnootherrecordswillbekept.

Handling of Requests for Ambulance Service at Control Points

6. Onreceivingareferralofrequestforambulanceservicefromthehotline,theduty officer at a border control point will jot down the details and then alert the Policeguardpostatthecontrolpointtoactivatethemechanismtocallanambulanceandassistthepatientingoingthroughtheclearanceprocedures.

7. Atpresent,thereisnocross-borderpatienttransferservice.HongKongresidentswhoareintheMainlandandrequireambulanceserviceuponreturningtotheterritorymaycallthehotlinetomakearequest.TheycanalsoseekhelpfromImmDstaffonarrivingatthecontrolpointsorcall999,theemergencyhotline.

8. PatienttransferbyambulancefromtheMainlandtoHongKongviathebordercontrolpointsrequirestrafficcontrolandthecoordinationworkwillbetakenupbytheHongKongPoliceForce.Toensurespeedyclearancebytherelevantdepartments, the ambulance must be arranged after the patient’s arrival at the Mainlandcheckpoint.Besides,theFireServicesDepartmentdoesnotofferappointmentserviceforambulance.

The Complainant’s Case

9. ImmDdidnotconsiderthehotlinestafftohavedelayedhandlingthecomplainant’senquiry.Theyhadassistedherproperlyandprovidedthecorrecttelephonenumberofthedutyroom.Itwasappropriateforthestafftoprovidethat telephone number to the complainant for further enquiries as she was not sure aboutherarrivaltimeatthatmoment.Moreover,ImmDfoundthatthecontrolpointstaffhadfollowedtheexistingmechanismandprovidedassistancewithintheshortestpossibletimetothecomplainantintransferringherbrotherbacktoHongKongformedicaltreatment.

10. ImmDdidnotfindanyevidenceinsupportoftheallegationthatthehotlinestaffhadbrokenthepromisetocallanambulanceforthecomplainant.ImmDbelieved that the complainant was very worried about her brother’s condition and shewantedtoarrangeanambulancetowaitforthem.Yet,Governmentdoesnotprovidesuchserviceandthehotlinestafffailedtoexplainthesituationclearlytoher,resultinginherdisappointment.ImmDpledgedtostrengthenitscommunication

Immigration Department (“Imm D”)


Ambulanceserviceatborder

control points

Allegations:(1)providingan

incorrect telephone number to

the complainant such that she

was unable to get timely help

from a border control point

and failing to call an

ambulance for her as promised

–unsubstantiated;(2)failingto

explaintothecomplainantthat

calling an ambulance was

outside the scope of the

hotline service and advise her

wheretoseekhelp–partially

substantiated;and(3)failingto

maintain complete records of

telephone calls from enquirers

seekinghelp–partially

substantiated

A case of inadequate monitoring of contractors


withotherGovernmentdepartmentsandreviewwiththeFireServicesDepartmentandthePolicethemechanismforcallingambulancesatbordercontrolpoints.

11. ImmDagreedthattherewasstillroomforimprovementinthehotlineservice,especially in how requests for assistance could be handled and recorded effectively whensomefunctionsofthetelephonesystemweredisrupted.TheDepartmentsubsequentlyadoptedimprovementmeasuressuchaskeepingrecordsofallenquiries/requestsreceivedthroughthedirectlinesforinternalauditpurpose,carryingoutrandomchecksandenhancingstafftraining.

Our Comments

12. Weweresatisfiedthatthehotlinestaffhasprovidedthecorrecttelephonenumberof the duty room to the complainant and handled the case in accordance with the departmentalguidelines.Aspartoftherecordingorrecordoftelephoneconversationwas unavailable and the staff members were unable to recall the incident, we could not besurewhethertheyhadmadethepromiseasallegedbythecomplainant.

13. Duringavisittothedutyroomofthecontrolpointinquestion,ourinvestigation officers found that it was not uncommon for Hong Kong residents to requestambulanceservicewhiletheywereoutsidetheterritory.ImmDalsoindicatedthatthefrontlinestaffpostedtoworkinthedutyroomwereallexperiencedandcapableofficersfamiliarwiththeoperationsofbordercontrolpoints.Intheabsenceofobjectiveproof,thecomplainant’sallegationthatthedutyroomstafffailedtoofferassistancewhenshecalledcouldnotbejustified.TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(1)unsubstantiated.

14. Furthermore,wefoundthatthecomplainanthadwronglybelievedfromtheoutsetthatanambulancecouldbepre-arrangedthroughthehotline.Unawareofherexpectation,thehotlinestaffhadnotclarifiedit,resultinginhermisunderstanding.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(2)partiallysubstantiated.

15. OurinvestigationconfirmedthattherewasapowersuspensionatImmigrationToweratthetimeandtherecordingfunctionofthehotlinewasdisrupted.ImmD’sexplanationtothecomplainantwas,therefore,basedonfactsandtherewasnocover-up.Nevertheless,thiscaserevealedthatwhensomefunctionsofthehotlineserviceweredisrupted,ImmDdidnotadoptanycontingencymeasurestorecordtheenquiries/requestsforassistancethatthedirectlineshandled.Wewereoftheview that incomplete records might undermine the role of the hotline in assisting Hong Kong residents who were outside the territory in distress in the case of a widespreadormajoremergency.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(3)partiallysubstantiated.


16. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

17. ImmDemphasisedthatthedirectlinesystemwithnorecordingfunctionhadbeen effective in handling major incidents even before the upgrading of its hotline system.However,wetooktheviewthat,ifImmDkeptonlyincompleterecordsforlackofaproperlyestablishedcasefileandifthewayImmDstaffhandledacaseshouldbequeriedsubsequently,itwouldbedifficultfortheDepartmenttoprovideobjectiveevidenceeithertodefendforitsstaffortogivethepartymakingthequeryafairaccount.

18. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatImmD:

(1) promptlyreviewtheimplementationoftheimprovementmeasuresforrecordingenquiries/requestsforassistancehandledbythehotlineand


consideraddingabackuppowersystemtomaintaintherecordingfunction so that the hotline could perform its functions fully and effectively;

(2) reviewthecontents,methodsandchannelsofpublicisingitshotlineservice.ApartfromgivingacleardescriptionoftheroleofGovernmentdepartmentsin patient transfer across the border and the handling procedures of requestsforassistance,theDepartmentshouldalsoremindthepublictofamiliarisethemselveswiththerelevantinformationsothattheycouldmakesensible decisions for themselves in case of emergency; and

(3) reviewfromtimetotimethecurrentproceduresandexaminewhetherpatientscouldbetransferredtothenearesthospitalmorequicklytoprovideearliertreatmentforpatients.


ThecomplainantwasanexpatriatewhohadworkedinHongKongduringthe1990s.Ataxrepresentative(“theRepresentative”)wasappointedbyhisemployerstohandlehistaxmattersandheleftHongKongin1998.

2. InMay2011,whenthecomplainantwasleavingtheterritoryafterabriefvisit,hewasstoppedattheairportbytheImmigrationDepartment(“ImmD”)inaccordancewithaDeparturePreventionDirection(“DPD”)issuedbytheCourtagainsthimforoutstandingtax.Hewasallowedtodepartaftermakingapartialpaymentincludinganoutstandingtaxof$45,544anda$7,059surcharge(collectivelyreferredtoas“theamountundercomplaint”).

3. HesubsequentlyfoundoutthatinMarch1999,IRDhadissuedhimataxrebatecheque(RefundCheque,“theRC”)intheamountof$45,544fortheyearofassessment1997/98.However,theRepresentativehadreturnedthechequetoIRDinlateAprilandrequestedthatitbeusedtooffsetthecomplainant’soutstandingtax.Thecomplainant,therefore,askedIRDtorefundtheamountundercomplaint,butwasrefused.

4. IRDarguedthatitreceivedaletterandatelephonecallinlateMarchandmid-April1999respectively,indicatingthatthecomplainantdidnotreceiveanytaxrebatechequeandrequestingareplacementcheque.Itwasnotedthatthecomplainant’saddresswasalsoupdatedintheIRDdatabaseatthattime(“thenewaddress”).Anewcheque(ReplacementRefundCheque,“theRRC”)intheamountof$45,544wasissuedtothecomplainantatthenewaddresson17May1999.Thechequewascashedon24May.Assuch,theset-offarrangementasrequestedbytheRepresentativehadnotbeenmade,meaningthatanamountof$45,544wasstilloutstanding.

5. ThecomplainantrefutedIRD’sargumentsandaskedforproofsofhishavingrequested,receivedandcashedtheRRC,aswellastheDepartment’srecordofitsissuance.IRDcouldprovidenone.HewasaggrievedthatIRDhadcoercedhimtopaytheamountundercomplaintwithoutgrounds.

Our Findings

6. Taxpayers’recordssuchaspersonalparticulars,refundandsettlementhistory,etc.arekeptintheIRDMainframeComputerSystem(“Mainframe”).Individual

Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”)


Recordsretentionpractice

Allegation:unreasonably

askingthecomplainanttopay

outstandingtaxplussurcharge

without providing any

supporting documentary

proofs–partiallysubstantiated

A case of faulty procedures


sectionsofIRDhavealsodevelopedtheirowndatabases.Forinstance,theRefundSectiondatabasekeepstrackoftaxpayers’requestsforchequeamendmentsandthechequenumbersofchequesissued.

7. IRDcarriesoutadestructionexerciseonceayearon“inactiverecords”(suchasbankstatementsandcancelledrefundcheques)keptbytheRefundSectionforaperiodofsevenyears.Fordocumentsconcerningchangeofaddressorpersonalparticulars,theywillbedestroyedoneyearafterallactionshavebeentaken.

8. Thereisnotimebarforretentionofrecordsofcasesundertaxrecoveryactions.Suchrecords,keptinacollectionfile,areconsideredactiverecordsuntiltheoutstandingtaxandanysurchargeincurredhavebeenfullysettled.Refundrecords, including copies of refund cheques, do not normally form part of the recoveryrecords.

IRD’s Response to this Case

9. Therehadbeenataxrebateexerciseforthe1997/98assessmentyear.Nevertheless,thepaperrecordsrelatingtothecomplainant’srequestsforareplacementchequeandupdateofhisaddress,aswellasthecopyoftheRRCissued,weredestroyedbyJanuary2007inaccordancewithIRDpolicy.NeitherwasthecopyoftheRRCretainedbythebank,whichnormallykeptsuchrecordsforsevenyears.

10. RecordsretrievablefromtheMainframeandtheRefundSectiondatabaseshowedthattheRCandtheRRC(bothintheamountof$45,544)hadbeenissuedinMarchandMay1999respectively.Statusoftheformerwasmarkedas“cancelled”andthelatter,“presented”.Inaddition,thepayeenamesourcecodeshowedthatbothchequesweremadetothesamepayee.Sincetherewasonlyonename(i.e.thenameofthecomplainant)registeredunderthecomplainant’sfileintheMainframeandallrefundchequesweremarkedwith“Non-NegotiableandAccountPayeeOnly”,theRRChadtobedepositedintothecomplainant’spersonalbankaccount.IRDalsobelievedthattheRRChadbeendeliveredtothenewaddress,asindicatedbytheaddresssourcecodeusedwithrespecttotheRRC.

11. WhenIRDinformedtheRepresentativeinJuneandJuly1999thattheset-offrequestcouldnotbeprocessed(becausetheRRChadalreadybeencashed),thelatteragreedtocontactthecomplainantforpayment.IRD,therefore,hadreasonstobelievethattherefundcasewasclosedandretentionofitsrecordsunnecessary.

12. IRDdidreceivetheRCreturnedbytheRepresentativeinApril1999(paragraph3).Uponourinquiry,theDepartmentsearcheditsdatabasebutfoundnoset-offarrangementhavingbeenmadewithit.Inotherwords,theamountof$45,544wasstilloutstanding.Sinceithadremainedunpaid,IRDimposedasurcharge.BetweenJuly1999andJune2005,IRDhadtimeandagainnotifiedthecomplainantofhistaxliabilitiesandthesurchargebypostdirectedtohisvariousaddresses(fourHongKongandfouroverseasaddresses)andviatheRepresentative.Thecomplainanthadalsorespondedbyemail.IRDwasoftheviewthathadthecomplainant been more serious upon receipt of these notices and queried about the outstandingtaxearlier,itcouldhaveretrievedthesourcedocumentsintheRefundSectionandobtainedacopyofthecashedchequefromthebank.

13. RegardingtheDPD,IRDhadsenttwoletterstothecomplainantinAugust2001andNovember2004,warninghimthattheDepartmentmightapplytotheCourtfortheorder.Severalremindersforpaymentwerealsoissuedtohim.TheCourtfinallygrantedtheDPDagainstthecomplainantinFebruary2006.


Our Comments

14. ThisOfficehadidentifiedcertaininadequaciesinIRD’srecordsretentionpracticeanddidnotfullyagreewithIRD’sviewsregardingthiscase.

15. Taxrecoveryactionsinevitablyinvolvelawenforcementactionsthatmayrestricttherightofthetaxpayer,asinthecomplainant’scase.IRDmusttakeaprudentapproachinkeepingrecordsfortaxcollectioncases.Inthepresentcase,theCollectionEnforcementSection,whichtookoverthecomplainant’scasefortaxrecoveryactionssinceJune1999,wasfullyawareofthereasonsforthe$45,544beingoutstandingandthesignificanceoftheRRC.Nevertheless,itdidnotkeepcopiesoftherelevantdocumentsintheRefundSectionfilesasevidenceofthetaxowedbythecomplainant.

16. Besides,weconsideredthatrefundrecordsarenotnecessarilyirrelevanttotaxrecoveryactionanditistheresponsibilityofIRDtoensureallrecordspertainingtothetaxcollectionactionaremaintainedproperlyassupportingevidenceuntilthetaxcollectionactionisover.

17. Asthepaperrecordsrelevanttothecomplainant’srequestsforareplacementchequeandchangeofaddresshadalreadybeendestroyedbyIRDby2007,theonlypieceofevidencethatIRDcouldproducetoindicatethatthecomplainanthadrequestedareplacementrefundchequewasanindirectone–aninternalmemofromtheRefundSectiontonotifytheCollectionEnforcementSectionoftherequest.ItwasnotsurewhetherIRDhadtakenproperstepstoverifytheidentityofthepersonwhomadetherequestinthefirstplace.

18. Likewise,IRD’scomputerrecordssuchasthenumbersanddatesofissueoftheRCandtheRRC,thepayeenamesourcecodeandtheaddresssourcecode,aswellasIRD’spracticeofmarkingallrefundchequeswith“Non-NegotiableandAccountPayeeOnly”couldjustservetosuggestthatthechequeshadbeenmadepayabletothecomplainantandsenttotheaddressesgiven,andthattheRRChadbeencreditedtothecomplainant’sbankaccount.IRDstatedthattherewasnorecordoftheRRChavingbeenreturnedundeliveredandthatithadconfirmedwiththebankthatthenewaddresswasthecomplainant’slastknownforwardingaddress.WeconsideredthesetobecorroborativebutnotdirectevidenceoftheRRChavingbeensenttoanappropriateaddress.Infact,wecouldnotbesurewhetherIRDhadfollowed the proper and stringent procedures in accepting the address change requestbeforesendingtheRRCtothenewaddress.

19. SinceIRDwasnotprudentenoughinkeepingrecordsfortaxrecoverycases,therecordsconcerningthecomplainant’staxliabilitieswereincompleteandinadequate.TheDepartmentcouldnotprovideconcreteevidencetoprovebeyonddoubtthatthetaxremainedunpaid,thoughwebelievedithadperusedallrelevantrecordsbeforeapplyingfortheDPDagainstthecomplainant.

Other Problems Identified

20. EvidenceofmaladministrationonthepartofIRDwasalsofoundinourinvestigation.Forinstance,itsstafffailedtonoticetheinconsistentinstructionsgivenbythecomplainant(requestforareplacementcheque)andtheRepresentative(requestforaset-offarrangementusingtheRC).Thisgaverisetovariousconfusionslaterandhencethiscomplaint.Updateofthecomplainant’saddresswasnotheededbydifferentIRDofficersevenwithinthesamesectionsuchthatsomelettersconcerningtaxmattersweresenttoanotheraddress.TheDPDcouldnotbesuccessfullyservedtothecomplainantbecausetheCollectionEnforcementSectionstillusedanoldaddressofthecomplainant.


21. NorwereIRD’staxrecoveryactionsproactiveenough.ItdidnottrytodeliverawarninglettertothecomplainantwhennotifiedbyImmDofhisarrivalinHongKonginDecember2003.Similarly,theCollectionEnforcementSectionfailedtocontactthecomplainantdirectthroughhisoverseasaddressesormakeeffectiveuseofhisemailaddressfortaxrecoverypurposeafterhehadconfirmedbyemailreceiptofIRD’s2004warningletter.

Tax Recovery Actions and the DPD

22. Notwithstandingtheabove,thisOfficeconsideredthatIRDhadreasonablegroundsfortakingtaxrecoveryactionsagainstthecomplainant.ThebankstatementkeptbyIRDwashardevidencethattheRRChadbeencashed on24May1999,sothechequemusthavebeenissued.OtherevidenceprovidedbyIRD(paragraphs10and11),thoughindirect,werestrongcorroborativeevidencethattheRRChadbeenissuedinthecomplainant’snameandthemoneycreditedtohisbankaccount.Also,theRRChadbeensenttothelastknownaddressofthecomplainantwhichcouldnotbeprovedincorrect.Therewasnorecordofithavingbeenreturnedundelivered.

23. WealsoconsideredIRD’sapplicationfortheDPDagainstthecomplainantjustified,asithadtakenactionstorecovertheoutstandingtaxbetweenJuly1999andJune2005,butinvain.Twolettersconcerningtheoutstandingtaxandsurcharge were sent to him at one of his overseas addresses, which was later provedtobecorrect.IRD,therefore,hadreasonstoassumethatthecomplainanthadleftHongKongandresidedelsewherewhilebeingfullyawareofhistaxliabilities.



25. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatIRD:

(1) criticallyreviewitsrecordsretentionpracticetoensureallrelevantrecordsand evidence are properly maintained in the collection files;

(2) reviewitsinternalcommunicationandcoordinationmechanismtoensureeffectiveandefficienttransferofinformation(especiallyanychangeofcorrespondenceaddressoftaxpayers/representatives)amongvarioussections, and clarification of conflicting information received; and

(3) strengthenstaffsupervisiontoensureproactiveactionsfortaxrecoveryandminimiseincidentsofnegligenceincommunicationwithtaxpayers,recordkeepingandtaxrefund.


A case of negligence and inadequacies in records retention


ThecomplainanthadnoticedsinceMarch2010severalnestsofwildswallowshighupontheexternalwallsofalawcourtsbuildingintheNewTerritories.Inmid-June2011,shelearnedthatscaffoldingwasbeingerectedaroundtheexternalwalls.Worriedthatthepathstothebirds’nestswouldbeblockedoncesafetynetswereput up to cover the scaffolding, the complainant sent an email request for help to AFCDthatsamenight.ShethencontactedthelawcourtsconcernedandArchSDdirectandaskedthemtofollowupthematter.

2. Thecomplainantdidnothearanythingfromthepartiesconcerned.Allthebirds’nestsweredestroyedlateron.Sheconsideredthatthepartiesconcernedhadfailedtoactivelyfollowupherrequestandhadwithheldthetruthfromher.

Background

3. UndertheWildAnimalsProtectionOrdinance(“theOrdinance”),nopersonshall,exceptinaccordancewithaspecialpermit,take,remove,injure,destroyorwilfullydisturbanestoreggofanyprotectedwildanimal(includingallwildbirds).Otherwise,hecommitsanoffence.

4. Ingeneral,thenestsofswallowsarestructurallysound.Thechanceofthemfallingdownnaturallyisveryslimunlessinexceptionallybadweather.

Course of Events

5. ArchSDwasresponsiblefortherefurbishmentoftheexternalwallsofthelawcourtsbuildingwhichbeganinlateApril2011.TheprojectwasoverseenbyaconsultantappointedbytheDepartmentandundertakenbyacontractor.Uponhandoverofthesite,thecontractordiscoveredsome“unidentifiedobjects”ontheexternalwallsnearthetopfloorbutdidnotreportthemattertoArchSD.

6. ThecomplainantaskedAFCDforhelpon14Juneandprovidedphotographsshowingthelocationsofthebirds’neststhefollowingday.On16June,afieldofficerofAFCD(“MrA”)wenttothelawcourtsbuildingforasitevisitanddiscussedwithaMsBofthelawcourts.Herelayedtoherthesubjectmatterofthecomplaint,explainedtherelevantprovisionsoftheOrdinanceandsuggestedthatopenings be made on the safety nets near the birds’ nests so that the swallows couldcomeandgofreely.However,MsBaskedMrAtosubmitawrittenapplicationandprovidetherelevantinformationtofacilitateconsultationwithArchSDandfollow-upactionsbythelawcourts.

7. Severaldayslater,MrAsubmittedthecasereporttohissupervisorMsC,whothensentaletterbyfaxtothelawcourtson22June.Thelettercontainedsuggestions to mitigate disturbance to the swallows’ nests caused by the refurbishmentworks.However,theletterdidnotreachthelawcourtsbecausethefaxnumberwasincorrect.MrAdiscoveredthemistakeon24Juneandre-senttheletterafterconfirmingthecorrectfaxnumber.Thelawcourtsacknowledgedreceipt.Atthesametime,therefurbishmentworkswhichhadbeensuspendedformorethanaweekduetoinclementweatherresumedthatsameday.

8. On27June,thelawcourtsinformedthecontractorandArchSD.Workersofthecontractorclimbedupthescaffoldingtocheckimmediatelybutdidnotfindanybirds’nests.ThecomplainantsentanemailtoAFCDagainthatday,claimingthatshesawswallowshoveringoutsidethesafetynetstryingtogetbacktotheirnests.Severalopeningswerecreatedonthesafetynetsthefollowingday.

9. On4July,thecomplainantclaimedthatshehadheardnothingfromthepartiesconcerned.ArchSDstaffconductedasitevisitatthelawcourtsbuildingthatdaybutdidnotseeanybirds’nests.On5July,ArchSD,itsconsultantandthe

Judiciary Administrator (“JA”), Architectural Services Department (“Arch SD”) and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”)

CaseNos.OMB2011/3083A,

B&C–Protectionofwildbirds

Allegations:

JA– failing to promptly attend to the complainant’s request for assistance to protect the swallows’nestsontheexternal

walls of a law courts building – unsubstantiated

ArchSD– same – partially substantiated

AFCD– same – substantiated


contractor conducted a joint visit and found some remains of the birds’ nests right belowtheoriginalpositionofthenests.On8July,theyconductedanothersitevisit,onlytofindthatrefurbishmenthadtakenplaceatthepartsoftheexternalwallswherethebirds’nestsshouldhavebeen.Bitsandpiecesoftheremainsofthebirds’nests,however,werefoundontheflowerbedsandthescaffolding.

10. Thecontractorsuspectedthatthenestsweredestroyedinthestormsearlier.AFCDindicatedthatnoactionscouldbetakenastherewasnotenoughevidencethatthecontractorhadwilfullydisturbedprotectedwildbirds.ArchSDandtheJudiciary discussed the issue and decided to create more openings on other parts of the safety nets so that the swallows could rebuild their nests at the original locations.

Comments from Departments Concerned

AFCD

11. Reportsofbirds’nestsbeingaffectedbymaintenanceworkswereconsideredasnon-urgentcases.Nevertheless,MrAwentovertothelawcourtsbuildingtoinspectandtriedtolocatethebirds’nestsassoonaspossible.Healsotriedtoexplainthesituationtothestaffthereandmadeseveralsuggestionstothem.Progressofthecasehadnotbeenaffecteddespitethesomewhatlatesubmissionofhisreporttohissupervisor.Also,asAFCDbelievedthatthelawcourtsandArchSDhadrepliedtothecomplainant,nofurthersiteinspectionwasarranged.

12. MrAhadhandledsimilarcasesbeforeandneverneededtogivepriornoticetotheperson-in-chargeofasiteinordertoconductaninspection.Nobodyhadeveraskedhimtoprovideinformationinwritingeither.MrAhadaskedMsBtogooutsidethebuildingtoinspecttheexternalwallstogetherbutwasrefused.MrAbelievedthatthelawcourtswouldonlytakeactionuponAFCD’swrittenapplication.Asfortheincorrectfaxnumber,hesaidthathehadwrittenitdownastoldbyMsB.

13. MsCconsideredanapplicationforsiteinspectionunnecessaryasMrAhadalreadyconductedonethereandthen.Besides,hehaddiscussedwithMsBaboutmakingsomeopeningsonthesafetynets.She,therefore,believedthatthelawcourtswouldfollowupthematterimmediately.

JA

14. OutsidepartiesshouldcontactthelawcourtsconcernedbeforevisitinganyofthebuildingsundertheJudiciaryforofficialpurposes.IfindoorphotographsofaJudiciarybuildingaretobetaken,priorapplicationisalsorequired.

15. TheJudiciarywasnotawareofthebirds’nestsontheexternalwallsofthelawcourtsbuilding.MrAhadnotnotifiedthelawcourtspriortohisvisit,nordidhetakeMsB’sadvicetoaskhissupervisortofileanapplicationatonce.Heneitherpointedouttoherexactlywherethebirds’nestswere,norinvitedhertoinspecttheexternalwallstogether.MsB,ontheotherhand,saidshehadgivenhimapieceofpaperwithhertelephonenumberandthelawcourts’faxnumberoniton16June.

16. Staffofthelawcourtshadcheckedwiththecontractorandwastoldthattherewerenobirds’nests.TheyhadbeenkeepinganeyeonanyletterfromAFCDbutreceivednone.Also,MrAdidnotleavehiscontactdetails.

17. JAsenttwointerimrepliestothecomplainanton11and15July.AbriefreportwasthenissuedinlateJulywhenitlearnedthatArchSDwouldgiveherasubstantivereply.


Arch SD

18. Initially,ArchSDdidnotknowaboutthebirds’nestsontheexternalwallsofthelawcourtsbuilding.Itactivelyfollowedupthematterafterwardsandaskedthecontractortocreateopeningsonthesafetynets.Italsoconductedaninvestigationonwhythebirds’nestshadfallendown.

19. Thebirds’nestswerenoteasilyvisibletothenakedeyeonthegroundlevelandthecontractor’sreportmadenomentionofthem.Furthermore,badweathercontinuedforsometimesincethescaffoldingwaserected.Itwas,therefore,difficulttoascertainwhythebirds’nestshadfallendown.ArchSDstaffhadnotwithheldanythingfromthecomplainant.

Our Observations and Conclusion

AFCD

20. AlthoughMrAhadhandledsimilarcasesbefore,heappearedquitehelplesswhenhisrequesttoinspectthebuildingwasturneddownonthespot.Hisversionoftheencounteron16JunewasverydifferentfromthatgivenbyMsB.Withoutindependentevidence,wecouldnotdecidewhoseaccountwasmorecredible.

21. AsMrAhadfailedtopointouttoMsBtheexactlocationsofthebirds’nests,itwasdifficultfortheJudiciarytotakefollow-upactionquickly.Meanwhile,hiscommunicationwithhissupervisorwasalsoineffective(forinstance,MsCthoughtthatthelawcourtswouldtakeimmediateactionbuthethoughtotherwise).Moreover,ittookhimfivedaystocompletehisreportaboutthecaseafterhissitevisit,whichwastooslow.

22. AFCDshouldinfactbetheGovernmentdepartmentmostconcernedaboutthefateoftheswallows’nests.AsJuneistheswallows’breedingseason,therewereprobablychicksinsidethenestswhichweretrappedbythesafetynetscoveringtheexternalwalls.AFCDhadfailedtoattachtheproperurgencytothecaseorempathisethecomplainant’sworries.

23. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstAFCDsubstantiated.

JA

24. ItisnotimproperforJAtodemandpriornoticefromoutsidevisitorstoitspremises.MsB’ssupervisorhadtakentheinitiativetotrybutshefailedtolocatethebirds’nestsafterMrAleft.StaffoftheJudiciaryalsopromptlycontactedthecontractorandArchSDuponreceiptofAFCD’sletter.Repliestothecomplainantwereissuedquicklyandtherewasnoevidenceofdelayorinformationbeingwithheld.

25. TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstJAunsubstantiated.

Arch SD

26. ArchSDhadtakentimelyandproperactionstofollowupthecaseandreplytothecomplainant.Nothingindicatedadelayorcover-up.However,itssupervisionofthecontractorwasinadequate.

27. Thecontractorhadfoundsome“unidentifiedobjects”ontheexternalwallsofthelawcourtsbuildingbutfailedtoreportit.However,ArchSDhadneverissuedanyguidelinestoitsconsultantsorcontractorsrequiringthemtotakestepstoprotectwildbirdsduringconstructionworks.Besides,afterconsideringtheopinionsofAFCDandthecomplainant,aswellastheweatherinformationprovided by the Hong Kong Observatory for the period concerned, this Office


believedthatthebirds’nestswereprobablydestroyedbyhumanaction.IfArchSDhad issued guidelines stating clearly that it was an offence to disturb birds’ nests, theswallows’nestsmighthavebeensaved.

28. TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstArchSDpartiallysubstantiated.

Recommendations


AFCD

(1)toissueguidelinestoallfrontlinestafftohelpthemdealwiththedifficulties encountered in discharging their duties;

(2) toreachagreementwiththosewhoseekhelpfromtheDepartmentbefore conducting site visits such that information they provided can be made available to the responsible parties at the site when necessary; and

Arch SD

(3) toreviewpromptlythevariousimprovementandremedialmeasurestakeninthelightofthiscase.Forinstance,ArchSDhadalreadyissuednew guidelines on measures to protect wild birds; reminded its consultantstomakesurethatworksfeasibilityreportsareaccurateandcomplete; and instructed its staff to contact the complainants proactively onreceiptofcomplaintsandinformthemofcaseprogress.ArchSDhadalso distributed to various departments a list of government buildings with birds’ nests provided by the complainant for their actions to help protectthewildbirds.


Thecomplainantownedaflatinabuilding.In1998,theBuildingsDepartment(“BD”)issuedtwoorderstotheIncorporatedOwnersofthebuildingtohavecertainpartsofthebuildinginvestigated.Alltheflatownersconductedinvestigationsincompliancewiththeordersin1999.Nevertheless,thecomplainant’sapplicationforreversemortgageofherflatinMay2012wasrejected,becauseLRhadnotregisteredintheLandRegisterinrespectofherflattheLetterofCompliance(“theLetter”)issuedbyBD.

Our Findings

2. OurinquiryrevealedthatBDhadinfactcopiedtheLettertoLRforregistrationinMarch2000.

3. TheLRofficerconcerned,however,failedtoregistertheLetterintheLandRegisterinrespectofthecomplainant’sflat.Itwasnotuntilafterthecomplainant’senquiryinJune2012thatLRamendedtheLandRegisterinrespectofherflattoshowthattheregistrationoftheLetterhadtakeneffectfromMarch2000.Thecomplainantthensucceededinherapplicationforareversemortgage.

Lands Department (“Lands D”)


Controloverlanduse

Allegation:Delayintaking

lease enforcement action

against property owners who

violatedleaseconditions–

substantiated

A case of oversight


Land Registry (“LR”)


Oversight in registration of

information

Allegation:failingtoregisterin

theLandRegisterinrespectof

a flat in a building a Letter of

Complianceregarding

investigation orders issued by

theBuildingsDepartment,such

that an application for reverse

mortgage by the owner of the

flat(thecomplainant)was

unsuccessful–substantiated

A case of slow response to an urgent complaint and inadequate supervision of contractors

4. LRapologisedtothecomplainantforitsofficer’soversight.ItindicatedthatitsRegistrationInformationSystemcommissionedinFebruary2005cateredformoreaccurateandreliableregistration,sosimilarmishapswereunlikelytooccuragain.

Our Comments

5. LRadmittedthatthecomplainant’sapplicationforreversemortgagehadbeenaffectedbythecarelessnessofitsofficer.Thecomplaintwassubstantiated.


Formanyyears,theOwners’CorporationofanindustrialbuildinghadbeencomplainingtoLandsDaboutsomeunitsofthebuildingbeingusedforprovidingfuneral services for pets, including cremation, provision of columbarium niches and adornmentoftheashes,thusviolatingthelandlease.However,thelocalDistrictLandsOffice(“DLO”)underLandsDdidnotconsiderthemascasesofhighpriorityandhencehadnottakenanyaction.Theproblempersistedasaresult.

Response from Lands D

2. InMarch2004,DLOreceivedcomplaintsreferredbytheFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment(“FEHD”)forthefirsttimeaboutsomeunitsofthebuildingbeingusedasanimalcrematoriums.DLO’sinvestigationrevealedthattwounitswerebeingusedforcrematingpetsandkeepingtheirashes.Afterseekinglegaladvice,DLOconfirmedthatsuchuseshadviolatedtherestrictionsonlandusestipulatedinthelandlease.

3. DLOalsoconsultedFEHD,theEnvironmentalProtectionDepartment(“EPD”)andtheFireServicesDepartment.Thethreedepartmentsconfirmedthatthoseuseshadnotcontravenedanylawswithintheirpurview.Assuchuseshadnotviolated any legislation relating to fire safety, they were not high priority cases underLandsD’sinternalguidelines,andhenceitwasnotnecessaryforDLOtotakeimmediateleaseenforcementaction.

4. InNovember2004,DLOreceivedsimilarpubliccomplaintsregardinganotherunitofthebuilding.Afterasiteinspection,DLOconfirmedthattheunitwasusedforkeepingashesofpets.SubsequentinspectionsbyDLOin2005foundthattwoof the three aforesaid units were still being used for funeral services for pets, which wereinviolationoftherestrictionsonlandusestipulatedinthelandlease.Asthecaseswerenotaccordedhighpriority,DLOonlyissuedwarningletterstothepropertyowners,statingthatGovernmentwouldtakenecessaryactionatanytimeifsuchviolationcontinued.

5. InNovember2007,EPDreferredtoDLOacomplaintfromthemanagementcompany of the building about another two units of the building being used for crematingpets.DLOlaterconfirmedthatoneofthemhadviolatedthelandlease.However, as such operation did not pose any danger and it was not a high priority case,DLOonlyissuedawarninglettertothepropertyownerinFebruary2008.SimilarcomplaintswerereceivedinthesameyearandDLOissuedwarningletterstotheownersofthreeunitsafterconfirmingtheirregularities.

6. BetweenJune2008andMarch2012,DLOreceivednumeroussimilarcomplaintsregardingthebuilding.Afterconfirmingthattheunitsconcernedhadviolatedtherestrictionsonlandusestipulatedinthelandlease,DLOagainissuedwarningletterstothepropertyowners.Subsequently,DLOstaffattemptedseveral


timestoinspectthoseunits.However,onalloccasions,eithertheywererefusedentryornobodyansweredthedoor.

7. InJune2012,DLOstaffwerefinallyadmittedtoinspecttwoofthefourunitsthatwerestillinviolationofthelandlease.Therepresentativesofthepropertyowners concerned argued that the units were actually used for industrial manufacturing, since the ashes from the cremation of pets would be adorned and turnedintomementos.Therepresentativesoftheownersoftheothertwounitsstatedthattheunitswereusedforkeepingtheashesofpetsandasofficesonly,hencenoviolationoftherestrictionsonlanduse.Afterseekinglegaladvice,DLOconfirmedthatthelattertwounitshadviolatedtherestrictionsonlanduse.DLOthen decided to register the warning letters against the titles of those units at the LandRegistry.Itwouldsimilarlyregistertheirregularitiesattheotherunitsonceviolationofrestrictionsonlandusewasconfirmed.

8. LandsDadmittedinadequaciesonthepartofDLOinhandlingthecomplaintsaboutthebuilding.Asremedy,itrequiredDLOtosubmitreportsfromtimetotimeforitsclosemonitoringoftheprogressofleaseenforcementaction.

Our Comments

9. Thefactsshowedthatsince2004,DLOhadreceivedmanycomplaintsaboutviolationofthelandleaseofthebuilding.Eachtime,however,DLOmerelyissuedwarninglettersafterinvestigationandobtaininglegaladvice.Asthosecaseswerenotaccordedhighpriority,DLOdidnottakeanyleaseenforcementactionotherthanissuingthewarningletters,whichwerenotlegallybinding.AsaresultofDLO’sdelayintakingsubstantiveenforcementaction,violationofthelandleasehad continued for eight years and the number of units involved increased from two tofour.Intotal,sevenunitshadviolatedthelandlease.WeconsideredDLOtohavebeenlaxinhandlingthosecases.

10. Moreover,wefounditquiteunnecessaryforDLOtoseeklegaladvicetimeandagain as all the units of the building were bound by the same land lease conditions and those under complaint were all involved in such uses as cremation of pets and keepingoftheirashes.Thedefencebysomepropertyownersthattheirunitswereusedforindustrialmanufacturingsoundedfar-fetched.Indeed,cremationofanimalcorpseswasinviolationoftherestrictionsonlanduseofthebuilding.We,therefore,urgedDLOtostepupeffortsingatheringevidenceformorerigorousenforcementactionagainstsuchblatantviolationsofthelandleaseconditions.

Conclusion and Recommendation

11. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintsubstantiated.

12. TheOmbudsmanurgedLandsDtoexpeditefurtheractionsontheirregularitiesinthebuildingtodeterotheroffenders.

A case of procrastination in taking enforcement action



The complainant alleged that a new sports centre and a new civic centre had been underplanningforoveradecadeinthedistrictwherehelived(“theDistrict”).Thefacilitieswereoriginallyexpectedtobecompletedandopentopublicin2005/06.However,bythetimehelodgedhiscomplaintwiththisOfficein2011,theciviccentreproposalhadbeencancelled,whileconstructionworkonthesportscentrehadnotyetstarted.ThecomplainantwasdissatisfiedthatLCSDhaddelayedinimplementingthetwoprojects.

Background

2. Whenestablishedin2000,LCSDtookover139capitalworksprojectsonleisureandculturalfacilitiesleftbythetwoformerMunicipalCouncils.Themajorityof those projects, including the proposals to construct a sports centre and a civic centreontwodifferentsitesintheDistrict,werestillinanearlyplanningstage.

3. Owingtotheeconomicdownturnatthetime,limitedresourceswereallocatedforleisureandculturalfacilitiesprojectsatthattime.Asaresult,theAdministrationinitiallyselectedonly16priorityprojects.TheDistrict’ssportscentreandciviccentrewerenotonthelist.

Response from LCSD

4. LCSDindicatedthat,unlikethetwoformerMunicipalCouncils,whichcouldgetaspecificpercentagefromratesrevenuedirectlyfortheircapitalworksexpenditureonleisureandculturalfacilities,LCSDhadtocompeteforfundingintheannualresourceallocationexerciseinaccordancewithestablishedproceduresofGovernmentdepartments.Despitesuchlimitation,LCSDstartedconsultingdifferentDistrictCouncilsin2002toprioritisealloutstandingprojectswithaviewtoimplementingthemgradually.

5. InthePolicyAddressdeliveredinJanuary2005,theChiefExecutiveannouncedthat25municipalprojectshadbeenidentifiedforprioritytreatment,includingtheDistrict’snewsportscentre.LCSDthusrestartedthepreparationprocessoftheprojectanddraftedtheProjectDefinitionStatementforit.ItalsorequestedtheArchitecturalServicesDepartment(“ArchSD”)tocommenceastudyandprepareaTechnicalFeasibilityStatementfortheproject.

6. Sincethesportscentre’soriginalsitewaslocatednearsomeinflammablegasproduction facilities and fell within the consultation zone of potentially hazardous installations,approvalfromtheCoordinatingCommitteeonLandUsePlanningandControlRelatingtoPotentiallyHazardousInstallations(“CCPHI”)wasnecessary.InpreparingariskassessmentreportforsubmissiontoCCPHI,theconsultantappointedbyArchSDhadsoughtadditionalinformationfromthegascompanyconcerned, but the request was rejected on the grounds that such information was highlysensitive.InApril2009,CCPHIdecidednottosupportthedevelopmentprojectbecauseofinsufficientinformation.

7. Meanwhile,theAdministrationnotifiedthelocalDistrictCouncilinMarch2009thattheDistrict’snewciviccentreprojecthadbeenshelvedafterconsideringvariousfactors,whichincludedacross-districtcommunityculturalcentresoontobebuiltintheneighbouringarea;theDistrict’spopulationdistributionandgrowth;andtheexistingvenuesandtheirusagerates.ThelocalDistrictCouncilthenconvenedameetingattheendofAprilandresolvedthattheproposedsportscentreberelocatedtothesiteoriginallyreservedfortheciviccentre.Toincreasethe types of leisure and cultural facilities available, a community hall and football pitcheswereaddedtotheproject.


CaseNo.OMB2011/5182A–

Leisure and cultural facilities

projects

Allegation:delayin

implementing the construction

projects of a sports centre and

a civic centre in a certain

district–unsubstantiated


Subsequent Development

8. LCSDhadsubsequentlypreparedaProjectDefinitionStatementfortherevised“SportsCentre,CommunityHallandFootballPitches”project,whichwasapprovedbytheHomeAffairsBureauinFebruary2012.ArchSDthencommencedatechnicalfeasibilitystudytopreparetheproject’sestimatedcostsandworksschedule.LCSDundertooktoseekthenecessaryresourcestoexpeditetheproject.


9. SincetakingovertheleisureandculturalfacilitiesprojectsfromthetwoformerMunicipalCouncilsin2000,LCSDwasunabletopursuetheDistrict’ssportscentreprojectbefore2005becauseofthegeneraleconomicdownturnandshortageinGovernmentresourcesatthattime.TheDepartmentobviouslycouldnotmakebrickswithoutstrawandwefoundnoimproprietyinLCSD’shandlingoftheproject.

10. Sincethesportscentreprojecthadbeenearmarkedinthe2005PolicyAddressforpriorityimplementation,LCSDhadindeedtakenpositivefollow-upaction.Itwas unfortunate that the project had to be relocated because of the special circumstances, particularly the refusal of the gas company to provide information andthelackofsupportfromCCPHI.Therefore,LCSDshouldnotbeblamedfortheprojectnotbeingabletoreachtheconstructionstageyet.

11. LCSDhadexplainedindetailwhytheciviccentreprojecthadbeenshelved(paragraph7).WefoundnomaladministrationonthepartofLCSDintheprocess.

Conclusion

12. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintunsubstantiated.


SinceMay2011,thecomplainanthadsubmittedseveralapplicationstoLCSDforhiringtheperformancevenueataciviccentretoholdasoloconcert.However,LCSDkeptrejectingherapplicationsforatimeslotonFriday,SaturdayorSunday.ShequeriedtheapprovingcriteriaandcomplainedthatLCSDmightnotbeabletoappreciatethelevelsofartisticattainmentofindividualapplicants.Thiscouldresultinunfairassessmentofbookingapplications.

2. Finally,thecomplainantwasallocatedaSundayslotinJune2012.Shethendesigned a publicity poster with horizontal layout, but a staff member at the venue toldherthatthepostercouldnotbedisplayedatLCSD’sticketingoutletsbecauseitwasnotinverticalformat.Also,shewasonlyallowedtoplaceoneposterandonepromotionalleafletateachoutlet.Notingthatotherorganisersofperformancescould place multiple copies of leaflets at the outlets, the complainant alleged that LCSDwasbiasedagainsther.ShealsocriticisedLCSDforunderminingartisticcreativity in requesting her to change the poster design without reasonable grounds.



Hiring of performance venue

Allegation:failingtoassess

fairly applications for hiring a

performance venue and

mishandling the display and

distribution of publicity

materials–unsubstantiated


Response from LCSD

Assessment of Booking Applications

3. Undertheexistingassessmentprocedures,whentherearemorethanoneapplicationsbiddingforthesametimeslotataperformancevenue,LCSDstaffwillgiveeachapplicationascoreandarating,takingintoconsiderationthenatureofthe proposed event, its artistic merits, arts promotion value and community building value, the organising ability of the applicant and the popularity of the applicant’s previousevents,etc.Allocationwillbedeterminedbycomputerballotiftwoormoreapplicationshavethesamescore.

4. LCSDexplainedthatallofficersresponsibleforassessmentofapplicationswereprofessionalartsexecutiveswithrelevantknowledgeandexperiences.Theartisticstandards of applicants would be assessed by reviewing the event details provided intheirapplicationformsandtheirpreviousperformancerecords.Wherenecessary,advicemightalsobesoughtfromLCSD’sspecialadvisorycommitteeorotherartsorganisations.

5. TheaboveassessmentcriteriawereprovidedonLCSD’swebsiteandtheinformationsheetonbookingarrangements.However,LCSDdidnotdiscloseanydetailsabouttheweightingandpoint-scalesassignedtoeachcriterion.Norwouldthe applicants be informed of the total scores and ratings given to their proposed performances.

Course of Events

6. LCSDrecordsshowedthatsinceMay2011,thecomplainanthadmadethreeapplicationsforhiringtheperformancevenueattheciviccentre.Infact,herfirstapplicationwasapproved,onlythatthebookingwassubsequentlycancelledbecauseshefailedtoconfirmbeforethedeadline.Inhersecondapplication,thesametimeslotwasalsorequestedbyanotherparty.Herapplicationhadalowerassessmentscoreandwasthusunsuccessful.Asregardsherthirdapplication,itwasapprovedandthesoloconcertwasheldasscheduled.

7. OrganisersofperformancescanplaceanumberofpromotionalleafletsatdifferentLCSDoutlets.Whensendingtheleafletstoeachoutletfordistribution,theymustattachonesamplecopystampedandendorsedbythehostvenue.LCSDbelieved that the complainant’s misunderstanding might have been caused by unclearexplanationgivenbythevenuestaff.

8. Asregardsthesizeofposters,LCSDexplainedthattherewereonlyalimitednumberofpanelsforputtinguppostersateachoutlet.Forbetteruseofpanelspace, its guidelines for preparation of publicity materials suggested a size with verticallayoutsothatseveralposterscouldbedisplayedsidebyside.Onlearningthat the complainant’s poster was only slightly wider than the suggested dimension, anLCSDofficerhadinspectedtheoutletandconfirmedthattherewasenoughspaceforit.Shetheninformedthecomplainantthatpostingwouldbearrangedforher.

Our Observations

9. WeexaminedLCSD’sworkrecordsandconfirmedthattheDepartmenthadfollowed its established procedures, assessment criteria and monitoring mechanism inapprovingapplicationsforhiringperformancevenues.Ithadestablishedaproper administrative regime for assessing the artistic standards of proposed events inordertoensureobjectivityandfairnessinitsproceduresasfaraspossible.Fromthe perspective of public administration, there was no impropriety on the part of LCSDinhandlingthecomplainant’sbookingapplications.


10. LCSDhadgivenanaccountonthedisplayanddistributionarrangementsofpublicitymaterials.Ithadalsocommittedtoenhancestafftrainingtoimprovetheircommunicationskills.Insuggestingthecomplainanttofollowthedimensionsspecifiedinthepublicitymaterialsguidelines,thevenuestaffwastryingtomakebetterallocationofresourcesandbalancetheneedsofdifferentorganisers.Thisshouldnotberegardedasunderminingartisticcreativity.


11. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintunsubstantiated.

12. However,weconsideredthattherewasalackoftransparencyinLCSD’ssystemofapprovingapplicationsforvenuehiring.Theinformationsheetcurrentlyprovided to the public only gave a brief list of assessment criteria without further elaborationontheirweightingandotherdetails.Withoutsufficientinformation,unsuccessfulapplicantswouldnaturallyquerywhethertherewasanyblackboxoperation.TheymightalsoquestiontheobjectivityandfairnessofLCSD’sassessments.

13. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatLCSDreviewitssystemofapprovingapplications for venue hiring and actively consider disclosing details of the assessmentprocedurestoletapplicantshaveabetterpictureoftherequirements.Ifthebookingresultshadtobedeterminedbycomputerballot,LCSDshouldalsoinformtheunsuccessfulapplicantsofthesituation.


Thecomplainantwasthepropertymanagementcompanyofaresidentialestate.Thereweresixcottontreesplantedonthepavementoutsidetheresidentialestate.The complainant was concerned that airborne cotton floss dispersed by the trees each spring might affect the residents’ health, and the seed pods falling from the treesmightalsoinjurepassers-by.

2. ThecomplainanthadthussoughthelpfromLCSD.InAugust2011,LCSDrepliedthatinAprilandMayeveryyear,itsTreeTeamwouldarrangeforworkerstouse elevated platforms and remove the ripe fruits from the cotton trees in order to reducetheeffectofcottonflossonthelocalresidents.

3. InMarch2012,notingthatthecottontreeswouldsoonblossom,thecomplainantcontactedLCSDagainforfollow-upaction.However,anLCSDofficerdeniedhavingmadeanysuchpromise.HeonlysaidthatthecasewouldbereferredtotheFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment(“FEHD”)tostepupitsclearanceofthecottonflossandseedpodssettledontheground.

Response from LCSD

Background

4. LCSDiscurrentlyresponsibleforthemaintenanceofaround9,000cottontreesintheterritory.Inearly2011,inresponsetocomplaintsfromtheDistrictCouncillorsandresidentsofadistrict,LCSDhiredacontractortoremovetheseedpods of some cotton trees to reduce the effect of airborne cotton floss on residents nearby.However,itarousedpubliccriticismbecausethecontractorpluckedthecottonflowerstogetherwiththeseedpods.LCSDimmediatelystoppedtheworkandstartedconsultingthelocalresidentsagain.




Tree management

Allegation:failingtoproperly

handle the nuisance caused by

airborne floss of cotton trees

toresidentsnearby–partially

substantiated

A case of lack of transparency in assessment procedures

5. Mostoftheresidentsinterviewedwereagainstthecontinuedremovalofcottonseedpods.Widemediacoverageoftheaboveincidentalsoattractedtheattentionofthepublicandtreeconservationgroups.Theyvoicedouttheirconcernsaboutthedamagethatsuchactionmightcausetothenaturalecology.TheHongKongMedicalAssociation(“HKMA”)advisedLCSDthattherewasnoevidencetosupportthatexposuretolowconcentrationofcottonfibresinnon-occupationalenvironmentwouldbeharmfultohumanhealth.However,peoplewithasthmaorhypersensitiveairwaysmightbesusceptibletotheirritatingeffects.Theyshouldseekmedicaladviceorwearfacialmasks.

6. InJune2011,LCSDissuedanewsetofinternalguidelinesonhandlingcottontrees, stipulating that on receiving complaints of nuisance related to cotton floss, frontline staff trained for tree inspection should conduct a site visit in each case to assessthesituation.LCSDwouldtakeintoaccountsuchfactorsasthedistancebetween the cotton trees and the residential areas, the amount and density of cotton floss dispersed from the trees and the severity of its effects, the amount of floss left on the trees, the remaining period of floss dispersal, the weather at the time and in the foreseeable future, and whether the parties affected could adopt anyothermitigatingmeasures.LCSDwouldonlyconsidertakingactionwhenitwas fully satisfied that cotton floss was causing a great nuisance and it was urgent andnecessarytoremovetheseedpods.

7. InAugust2012,LCSDformallyconsultedtheTreeManagementOffice(“TMO”)undertheDevelopmentBureauontheremovalofcottonseedpods.TheExpertPanelofTMOopinedthatcottonflosswasnothazardoustothehumanbodyandtheconcernsofthepublicwerelargelypsychological.Thedispersalofcottonflosswouldonlylastforashortperiodoftime.Peopleshouldliveharmoniously with trees and avoid disrupting the natural growth of cotton trees unnecessarily.


8. InAugust2011,anLCSDofficerdidtellthecomplainantthattheDepartmentwouldmakearrangementsinthefollowingspringtoremovetheripefruitsonthecottontrees.HeobviouslyfailedtofollowthelatestinternalguidelinesissuedearlierinJune2011andrespondedtothecomplainant’srequestintheusualmanner.

9. InMarch2012,anotherLCSDofficertookoverthecase.HefollowedtheinternalguidelinesandtoldthecomplainantthattheDepartmentwouldnotplucktheflowersofcottontrees.HesaidtherequestforremovingtheseedpodswouldbeansweredlaterasLCSDhadtoconductasitevisitandassesswhethertherewasanurgentneed.

10. Afteravisittotheareaaroundthecomplainant’sestate,LCSDfoundthatthenuisance of airborne floss had been abated by the higher rainfall that year, because manyflowerssoakedintherainhadfallenfromthecottontrees.Consequently,LCSDdecidednottoremovetheseedpodsofthecottontrees,butwouldaskFEHDtostepupitsclearanceoftheflowersandcottonflossfallentotheground.Nevertheless,inhissubsequentreplytothecomplainant,theLCSDofficerdidnotexplainclearlytheassessmentresultsandtheDepartment’srationaleandapproachinhandlingcottontrees.

11. LCSDadmittedtoinadequaciesintherepliesgivenbythetwoofficersandapologisedtothecomplainant.


12. WhetherLCSDshouldremovetheseedpodsofcottontreesinvolvedprofessionalknowledgeontreeplantingandmaintenance,henceitwasnotanadministrativeissuewithinourpurview.OurinvestigationfocusedonhowLCSD


had made its decision to change its former procedures, and whether it had implementedthenewmeasuresproperly.

13. Inthepast,LCSDhad,atthelocalresidents’request,removedtheseedpodsofsomecottontrees.WhenLCSDconductedaninternalreviewin2011,LCSDonlyconsideredtheviewsofHKMAandsomemediareports.Therewasnoformalconsultationwithtreeexpertsatthattime.Therewasalackofthoroughconsiderationandin-depthstudybyLCSDinchangingitsformerprocedures.

14. AfterissuingtheinternalguidelinestoitsstaffinJune2011,LCSDfailedtopromptly inform the public or the residents affected of the new measures and explaintothemthereasonsbehind.ThosewhohadsoughthelpfromLCSDbeforeweredisappointedtolearnthatitwouldnolongertakeactionasinthepast.Itwasunderstandablethattheyfeltaggrievedasaresult.

15. Moreover,althoughmostofthefactorsforconsiderationcitedbyLCSD(paragraph6)weremeasurable,noobjectivestandardsweresetforthosefactors.WhileweconsidereditproperforLCSDtorelyonthespecialistknowledgeandexperienceofitsfrontlinestafftoassesseachcase,itwouldbedifficulttoimplementthemeasureseffectivelyandexplaintheassessmentresultstothepublicintheabsenceofspecificdataorranking.Thiscouldeasilyleadtoqueriesandcomplaints.


16. Althoughtherewasalackofthoroughconsideration,LCSDwasnottotallygroundlessinchangingitsproceduresforhandlingcottonfloss.However,LCSDwasinsensitivetothereasonableexpectationoftheresidentsaffected,nordiditprovideanyobjectivecriteriatoexplainitsdecision.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredthecomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

17. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthat,beforereportingtotheDistrictCouncilsconcernedonhowitwoulddealwithcottonflossinfuture,LCSDshouldstudyobjective scientific research on the pros and cons of removing seed pods in order to explainclearlytothepublictherationalebehinditsmeasures.Furthermore,inexaminingtheguidelinesissuedinJune2011,LCSDshouldreviewthefactorsforconsideration and assessment criteria so that its frontline staff can comply and avoid similarcomplaints.


InFebruary2011,thecomplainantappliedtoMDforpermissiontolayaprivatemooringforhispleasurevesselatabayofanoutlyingisland(“theBay”).Laterthatyear,thepleasurevesselchangedownership.MDthusdecidedtostopprocessinghisapplication.ThecomplainantdisagreedandpressedMDformoredetailsofitsestablishedguidelinesandprocedures.MDrejectedhisrequest,statingthattheinformationwasforinternalreferenceonly.

2. ThecomplainantallegedthatMDhadmishandledhisapplication.

Relevant Guidelines and Procedures

3. Therearecurrently46privatemooringareasinHongKongwaters,asdesignatedbytheDirectorofMarine.


Marine Department (“MD”)


Applicationtolayaprivate

mooring

Allegation:mishandlingthe

complainant’sapplication–

partially substantiated

A case of lack of objective criteria for assessment and failure to notify the parties affected by new measures

4. The“NotesforGuidance”ofMD’sapplicationformforpermissiontolayaprivatemooring states clearly that an application must be made with a designated vessel licensedundertheapplicant’sname.Ifmooringspaceisavailableattheproposedlocation,MDwouldconductasitevisitwiththeapplicanttoidentifyasuitablemooringposition.Thepositionshouldbetechnicallyfeasibleformooringavessel.

5. Ifanapplicationinvolvesprivatemooringoutsidethe46designatedareas,MDshouldconsulttherelevantGovernmentdepartmentsandlocalorganisations.

Response from MD

Sequence of Events

6. ThecomplainantappliedtolayaprivatemooringatLocationAoftheBay,oneofthe46designatedprivatemooringareas,inFebruary2011.MDfoundthelocationunacceptablebecauseofinsufficientwaterdepthandsubmergedrocks.ThecomplainantthensubmittedanapplicationforLocationBinlateAugust,butthewatertherewasstilltooshallow.Afterajointsitevisit,LocationCwithsufficientwaterdepthtoaccommodatethevesselwasidentified.

7. AsithadbeenfiveyearssincethelastapprovedprivatemooringattheBaywascancelledandremoved,MDhadtoconductaconsultationregardingthecomplainant’sapplication.Twoobjectionswerereceivedduringthefirstroundofconsultation.MDthenconductedasecondround.Whileconsultationwasstillunderway,however,theDepartmentnoticedthattheownershipofthesubjectpleasure vessel had been transferred from the complainant to another person in November2011.Astherewasnovesselregisteredunderthecomplainant’sname,MDdecidednottoprocesshisapplicationfurtherandinformedthecomplainantofsuchinMarch2012.

8. Thecomplainantarguedthatalthoughhenolongerownedthevessel,hehadhiredit.HequeriedMD’sdecisionandaskedtheDepartmenttogivehimmoredetailsonitsguidelinesandprocedures.MDrefused,statingthattheywereinternaldocumentsforprocessingapplicationsandrelatedmattersonly.

Handling of the Application

9. MDindicatedthatforbettermanagementandcontrolofprivatemoorings,itonlyacceptsapplicationstolayaprivatemooringbytheownerofavessel.Applicationsbyahirerwillnotbeacceptedasitisverydifficulttoverifywhetherthe leasing of the vessel is genuine, or to follow through the renewal or termination oftheleasingcontractorarrangement.

Provision of Guidelines and Procedures

10. MDarguedthatdisclosureoftheguidelinesandprocedureswouldpossiblyprejudicetheproperandefficientconductofitsoperations.Furthermore,asthesedocumentsarenotexhaustiveandaresubjecttochangefromtimetotime,MDwasworriedthatmakingthemavailabletothepublicwouldinviteargumentsfromapplicantsinpossessionofoutdatedversions.Thismightinhibitstafffrommakingfrankdecisionswhenprocessingapplications.

11. Inthelightoftheabove,MDconsidereditsrefusaltoprovidetheguidelinesandprocedurestothecomplainantjustifiedundertheCodeonAccesstoInformation(“theCode”).

Our Comments

Handling of the Application

12. ItisMDpolicynottoacceptapplicationstolayaprivatemooringfromthose


whodonotownavesselandMDstoppedprocessingthecomplainant’sapplicationbecausehewasnolongertheownerofthepleasurevessel.WeconsideredMD’shandling of the application in compliance with its established guidelines and procedures.

Provision of Guidelines and Procedures

13. TheGuidelinestotheCodegiveexamplesofsituationswhereadepartment’soperationwouldbeaffected.Suchexamplesaretheconductoftests,managementreviews,examinationsorauditsconductedbyorforadepartmentwheredisclosureof the methods used might prejudice the effectiveness of the tests or the attainmentoftheirobjectives.

14. ThepresentcasedidnotfallwithintheareascontemplatedbytherelevantprovisionoftheCodeassuggestedbyitsGuidelines.MDassumedthatitsstaffwouldbeinhibitedfrommakingfrankandcandiddecisionsinthefaceofcontentionsfromapplicantswhoweregivenMD’sguidelinesandprocedureswithregardtotheprocessingofapplications.WeconsideredsuchassumptionunreasonableandMD’sreasonsforrefusalinvalid.



16. WerecommendedMDtoprovidethecomplainantwithcopiesoftherelevantpartsoftheguidelinesandproceduresonhandlingapplications.


Thecomplainantwasthecreditorofabankrupt(“MrA”)whoseassetsweremanagedbyOROastrustee.ThecomplainantallegedthatORO,whenhandlingapropertyinmainlandChinajointlyownedbyMrAandhisfamilymember(“MsB”),hadacceptedavaluationreportprovidedbyMsBwithoutcarefulexamination.Consequently,MrA’s50%ownershipinthepropertywassoldtoMsBatapricefarbelowitsmarketvalue,tothedetrimentofthecreditors.

Course of Events

2. InAugust2010,OROlearnedfromthecomplainantthatMrAandMsBjointlyownedapropertyinmainlandChina.OROthennotifiedthetwojointownersthatMrA’s50%interestinthepropertyshouldbelongtotheOfficialReceiverasthetrusteeinbankruptcy,andinvitedMsBtoconsiderbuyingoutMrA’sinterest.

3. InOctober2010,MsBsubmittedtoOROavaluationreportpreparedbyavaluationinstitutioninmainlandChina(“thefirstvaluationreport”)andofferedtopurchaseMrA’sinterestatapriceequaltohalfoftheassessedvalue.OROacceptedherofferandcompletedthetransactioninJanuary2011.

4. Thecomplainantconsideredtheassessedvalueprovidedinthefirstvaluationreporttoolowbecauseithadadoptedthe“costsapproach”inassessingthevalueoftheproperty.HeappointedanotherinstitutioninmainlandChinatovaluethepropertyagainusingthe“marketcomparisonapproach”andthemarketvalueassessedwasfourtimesthefirstvaluation.HeallegedthatOROhadbeennegligent in accepting the first valuation report without conducting a careful assessment.


Official Receiver’s Office (“ORO”)


Propertyvaluation

Mainallegation:failingto

carefullyexaminethevalueof

abankrupt’spropertyin

mainlandChinawhenacting

as a trustee, thus impairing the

interestsofcreditors–

substantiated

A case of unreasonable refusal to provide information

5. Onreceiptofthecomplaint,OROstartedaninvestigation,whichincludedverifying the professional qualifications of the valuation institution concerned and itsstaffandrelevantrecords.ItalsoappointedaHongKongsurveyors’firmtoassessthepropertyagain,andthemarketvalueitarrivedatwasaboutthesamelevelastheoneassertedbythecomplainant.OROthenwrotetoMsB,allegingthatthevaluationprovidedbyherhaddeviatedgreatlyfromthemarketvalue.Thetransactionshouldthereforebenullifiedandshewasdemandedtheshortfall.However,accordingtothelegaladvicereceivedbyORO,thechanceofrecoveringthe shortfall would be slim and there was insufficient evidence to prove that fraud wasinvolvedinthiscase.

Response from ORO

6. OROexplainedthatitwasdifficulttofindintheopenmarketabuyerwhowouldbewillingtopurchase50%interestinaproperty.Moreover,thepropertywasnotinHongKong.HenceOROwouldgivepriorityconsiderationtoanyoffermadebytheco-owner(i.e.MsB)inordertorealiseMrA’sassetsassoonaspossible.

7. AccordingtoORO’sinternalguidelines,insolvencyofficersarerequiredtoobtainvaluationtoascertainthemarketvalueofaproperty.Ifthebuyerhasalready submitted a valuation report prepared by professional surveyors and the dateofreportisclosetothedateoftransaction,OROnormallywillnotseekanothervaluation.Althoughtheinternalguidelinesdonotspecifythatofficersshouldscrutinisethevaluationreport,OROconfirmedthattheofficerinthiscasehadalreadyexaminedthefirstvaluationreportandacceptedingoodfaiththatithadmadeafairestimationonthemarketvalueoftheproperty.HethenreliedonthevaluationtoselltheinterestownedbyMrA.

8. OROwasintheprocessofenhancingitsproceduresofsellinglandedproperties.ForpropertieslocatedoutsideHongKong,OROwouldconsiderobtainingasecondvaluationorsupplementaryevidencewherejustified.


9. OurinvestigationfocusedonwhetherOROhadputinplaceappropriateadministrative arrangements for assessing or engaging relevant professionals to assesspropertyvalues,thusenablingOROtodischargeitsdutiesofrealisingassetsandprotectingtheinterestsofbankruptsandcreditors.

10. Thefirstvaluationreportclearlystatedthatithad,ontherequestofthepropertyowners(namely,MrAandMsB),usedthe“costsapproach”toassessthereplacementorreconstructionvalue(insteadofthemarkettransactionvalue)oftheproperty.AccordingtothepracticeguideissuedbytheEstateAgentsAuthority,the“replacementcostsapproach”isseldomusedandisonlyusedsometimesasalast resort to value the type of properties which rarely changed hands and for which therearefewcomparables,suchashospitals,schoolsandchurches.

11. ThepropertypartiallyownedbyMrAwasforresidentialpurposes.WefounditstrangethatOROhadnotraisedanyqueryoverthe“costsapproach”adoptedinthefirstvaluationreportandhadaccepteditwithoutanyanalysisorexplanationinthefilerecords.Itseemedthatthecaseofficerhadsubmittedthecasetohissupervisor for approval shortly after ascertaining that a valuation report had been providedbyMsB.Wecouldnotseefromthefilerecordsthattheyhadconsideredthe contents of the valuation report and whether the valuation approach adopted servedtheintendedpurpose.

12. ItwasonlyafterOROhadcompletedthetransactionandreceivedthecomplaint that it verified the qualifications of the valuation institution concerned


anditsstaff,andcheckedwhethertheinstitutionhadanybadrecords.ThisfullyreflectedORO’slackofdeliberationandduediligenceinitsearlierapprovalprocess.

13. WeconsideredtheproblemattributabletoORO’stoorudimentaryinternalguidelines, which failed to include the essential step of scrutinising the property valuationreport.Also,thesupervisorymechanismatthemanagementlevelwasslackandfailedtoplaytheproperroleofagate-keeperbeforethedealwasclosed.AsadmittedbyORO,itsofficerswerenotexpertsinpropertyvaluationandtheymightbeevenlessfamiliarwithpropertyoutsideHongKong.Thiswasexactlywhyproperguidelinesandeffectivesupervisionwereimportant.

14. Moreover,wenotedthatMsBhadnotprovidedanyreceipttosupportanexpenseitemtobedeductedfromtheproceedsofpropertysale,andsomeotherexpenseitemsdeductedappearedtobemessyandunclear.However,OROexerciseddiscretiontoallowtheseitemsclaimedbyher.Fromtheperspectiveofaccountability, the officer should at least give an account on file of the justification forexercisinghisdiscretion,whichshouldalsobesubjecttoreviewandmonitoringbythemanagement.


15. OROfailedtoconductcarefulverificationandconsiderthoroughlythecontentsofthefirstvaluationreportbeforeenteringintothetransaction.Itssupervisorymechanism was clearly inadequate, such that the management was unable to identifytheproblemandtakeactionsatanearlystage.

16. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintsubstantiated.

17. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatOROconsiderthefollowingimprovementmeasures:

(1) toreviewandrevisepromptlytheinternalguidelinesonsaleofbankrupts’landed properties, which should include specifying in what circumstances a second valuation report should be sought;

(2) toreviewandimprovethesupervisorymechanismonhandlingthesaleofbankrupts’landedproperties;and

(3) toreminditsstaffmemberstorecordproperlyalldeductibleexpensesintheirfilesandconsulttheirsupervisorswherenecessary.


ThecomplainantallegedthattherehadbeenmisdeliveryofmailbyPOsince2005.Consequently,anumberofletterssenttoherwerelostandshereceivedsomelettersaddressedtootherpeople.TherewasimprovementaftershehadcomplainedtoPOin2009.However,theproblemrecurredattheendof2011andshecomplainedtoPOagain.

2. POexplainedthatnon-deliveryofmailcouldbeduetovariousfactors.Intheabsenceofevidence,POcouldnotconcludethatitwasaresultofmisdeliverybythepostman.ShewasdissatisfiedwithPO’sexplanationandbelievedthatherprivacymighthavebeendisclosedasaresult.


Post Office (“PO”)


Maildelivery

Allegation:improperhandling

of a complaint about mail

delivery–partially

substantiated

A case of defective administrative and supervisory mechanisms

Response from PO

Monitoring Mechanism and Performance Pledge

3. POhasastrictmonitoringsystemunderwhichpostmenarerequiredtofollowlaiddownproceduresformaildeliveryandmailsortingwillberandomlycheckedbyseniorpostmen.Besides,POregularlycollectsfeedbackfromcustomersonitsmaildeliveryserviceandconductssitevisitsandopinionsurveys.Incasesofrepeatedmisdeliveryofmailbypostmen,POwilltakedisciplinaryactionagainstthepostmenconcernedinaccordancewiththeGuidelinesonAdministrativeActionandSummaryDisciplinaryAction.

4. Asregardslocalmaildelivery,POpledgesthat99%oflocallypostedletterswillbedeliveredtothelocaladdresseesbythefollowingworkingday.Intheevaluationofworkperformance,asmallpercentageofmailwillnotbetakenintoaccountforvarious reasons, such as mail requiring redirection service or undelivered mail due to incompleteaddress.Nevertheless,POwouldconsiderincludingcasesinvolvingmisdeliveryinitsfutureevaluationofperformance.


5. In2009,thecomplainantcomplainedthatthepostmenhadmisdeliveredmailaddressedtootherpeopletoher.AmongthethreePOstaffmemberswhohandled her complaint at the time, two subsequently resigned and the remaining one recalled that he had reminded the postman who was responsible for the deliveryroutetoensureaccuratemaildelivery.However,therecordofthatcomplaintwasdestroyedtwoyearsafterthecasewasclosedandPOcouldnotprovidefurtherdetails.

6. InJanuary2012,thecomplainantcomplainedtoPOthatshedidnotreceiveamonthlybankstatement.AsPOdidnotkeeprecordsofordinarymail,thecauseofnon-deliverycouldnotbedetermined.Nevertheless,toensureservicequality,POhadarrangedtocheckthecomplainant’smailandnothingabnormalwasfound.PObelievedthatthedeliveryofothers’mailtothecomplainantbeforethecheckingwasamisdelivery.Ithadremindedthefrontlinestafftobemorecautious.

7. AccordingtoPO,undeliveredmailisnormallyreturnedtothesenderatthereturnaddress.Ifthecomplainantsuspectedthatherbankstatementwasundeliveredorlost,shecouldclarifywiththesenderorauthorisePOtocontactthebanktoinvestigate.

8. SinceApril2009,POhadsentout28testletterstohouseholdsalongthedeliveryrouteandsubsequentlyreceivedthreecompletedquestionnaires.Therespondentsfoundthemaildeliveryserviceproperandsatisfactory.Also,POhadattemptedtocollectfeedbackdirectlyfromthehouseholdsnearbythroughsitevisitsbutfailedbecausethedoorswereansweredbyhousekeepersonly.Onthelowresponserate,POnotedfrompastexperiencethatcustomersgenerallysatisfiedwiththepostalservicemightnotcompleteandreturnthequestionnaire.Furthermore,POhadnotreceivedanycomplaintsaboutthesamedeliveryrouteinthe past two years and so believed that mail delivery service for the route was normal.PO,however,undertooktofollowitsexistingarrangementsandstrengthenitsmonitoringofthemaildeliveryroute.

Our Comments

9. Weconsideredthattherewasindeedaproblemofmisdeliveryasthecomplainantdidproducealetterwhichwasaddressedtoanotherperson.Yet,theevidenceavailablecouldnotestablishthatPOhadmisdeliveredherbankstatementtoothersandcausedherprivacytobedisclosed.ThecomplainantalsotoldthisOfficethattherehadnotbeenanymisdeliverylately.


10. Althoughtestlettersandon-siteopinionsurveyswereusedbyPOtomonitormaildeliveryservice,veryfewcompletedquestionnaireswerereturned.Thisshowedthecustomers’lukewarmresponsetothesurveys.Also,theproblemsofmisdelivery of mail and return of undelivered mail items to the senders were not coveredinthequestionnaire.WeconsideredPO’smonitoringmeasuresunabletoservetheirpurpose.Asaresult,PO’sinvestigationinresponsetocomplaintshadnot been very effective and the validity and reliability of its opinion surveys were doubtful.


11. Inviewoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

12. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatPO:

(1) enhanceitsmonitoringmechanismbyreviewingthehandlingofcomplaints about lost mail and considering using more proactive methods tocheckformisdeliveryofmail.Suchmethodsmayincludeobtainingconsent from the recipient to contact the sender for clarification;

(2) considerimprovingthedesignofitssurveyquestionnairesothatitcanget a better picture of its mail delivery service; and

(3) considertakingintoaccountcasesinvolvingmisdeliveryofmailinitsevaluationofservicessothattheperformancecanbeaccuratelyassessed.


Thecomplainant’sparentslivedinapublichousingunitandwereCSSArecipients.InJune2011,thecomplainant’ssisterpurchasedtheunitforthem,sothattheycouldcontinuetolivethereasowners.Subsequently,SWDnotifiedtheelderlycouplethatthepurchaseamountshouldbetreatedastheirincome.TheythusbecameineligibleforCSSAinJulyandwererequiredtoreturnthatmonth’sCSSAallowancetoSWD.

2. ThecomplainantconsideredSWD’sdecisionunreasonable.ShecontendedthataccordingtotheinformationprovidedontheDepartment’swebsite,thevalueofanowner-occupiedresidentialpropertywouldbetotallydisregardedfortheassettestundertheCSSASchemeifthereisanagedordisabledmemberinthehousehold.Sinceherfatherwas65andhermotherwasreceivingdisabilityallowance,bothofthemwereeligibleforthatwaiver.Besides,shehadmadeseveraltelephonecallstoSWDtoseekclarificationbeforethepublichousingunitwaspurchased.AnSWDofficerconfirmedtoherthatherparents’eligibilityforCSSAwouldnotbeaffectedeveniftheybecameownersoftheirpublichousingunit.

Response from SWD

3. AccordingtoSWD’sguidelinesontheCSSAScheme,allapplicantsforCSSAmustpassbothitsassetandincometests.

4. Regardingtheassettest,elderlyordisabledCSSArecipientsareallowedtocontinuelivingintheirhomesandneighbourhoodsoncompassionategrounds.Thevaluesoftheirself-occupiedpropertiesaretotallydisregardedforthetest(“Rule(1)”).

A case of contradictory rules and failure to provide full explanation


Social Welfare Department (“SWD”)


IncometestforComprehensive

SocialSecurityAssistance

(“CSSA”)

Mainallegation:

unreasonableness in the

assessment of the income of

an elderly and disabled couple,

who had received a residential

property as a gift, such that

they had to return one month’s

CSSAallowance–partially

substantiated

A case of faulty monitoring mechanism

5. Nevertheless,fortheincometest,ifCSSArecipientsreceiverealpropertyorother assets as a gift from a relative or friend, the amount involved will be calculatedastheir“assessableincome”.TheirCSSAallowanceintheensuingmonthwillbeadjustedaccordingly(“Rule(2)”).

6. SWDstressedthattheabovetworulesarebasedondifferentrationaleandprinciples.CSSAismeanttobethelastsafetynetforpeoplefacingeconomichardship.CSSArecipientsshouldfirstusetheirowneconomicresourcestocopewiththeirbasicnecessities.Acquisitionofpropertyisnotabasicnecessity.Inthecase of the complainant’s parents, they could have continued renting their public housingunitandreceivingrentallowanceundertheCSSAScheme.Hence,theirCSSAallowanceshouldbedeductedinthelightofthefinancialsupportfromtheirdaughter.

7. SWDlearnedfromtheHousingDepartmentinJuly2011thatthecomplainant’sparentshadbecomeownersoftheirunitinJune.UnderRule(2),theamountpaidforpurchasingtheunitshouldbetreatedastheirincome.TheythushadtoreturntheCSSAallowancealreadypaidtotheminJuly.Nevertheless,underRule(1),thevalueoftheirunitwastotallydisregardedfortheassettest.FromAugust2011onwards,theywouldcontinuetoreceivethefullamountoftheirCSSAallowanceeverymonth.

8. SWDstatedthatitsofficerhadexplainedRule(1)tothecomplainantinresponsetohertelephoneenquiry.Hehadalsoaskedhertoproviderelevantinformation so that he could report to his supervisor and follow up the case accordingtoCSSArules.Sincethecomplainantdidnotprovidefurtherdetails,hedidnotexplainRule(2)toheratthattime.

Our Comments

9. WecheckedtheSWDwebsiteandconfirmedthattherulesontheassetandincometestsareintheDepartment’sguidelines.Purelyfromtheperspectiveofadministrativeprocedures,SWDshouldnotberegardedasatfaultforenforcingtheestablishedRule(2)torecoveranoverpaidCSSAallowancefromthecomplainant’sparents.

10. Intheabsenceoftelephonerecording,wewereunabletoascertainthedetailsoftheconversationsbetweenthecomplainantandtheSWDofficer.However,weconsideredthatbothRules(1)and(2)werecrucialinformationandshouldhavebeencitedtogetherbytheofficerwhenansweringthecomplainant’senquiry.

11. Inviewoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

Other Observations

12. ThiscasealsoshowedthatRules(1)and(2)areessentiallycontradictory.Rule(1)isbasedontheprincipleofcompassiontocarefortheelderlyanddisabled.Theintentiscommendable.However,whenanelderlyordisabledCSSArecipientisgivenaplaceofresidencebyhis/herrelativeorfriend,thereisactuallynoincreaseinhis/herdisposableincome.IfSWDrigidlyenforcesRule(2)andrequireshim/hertoreturnonemonth’sCSSAallowance,itmightparadoxicallycausesubstantialhardshiptohim/herforonewholemonth,andpossiblyevenanabsurdscenarioofhim/her“beingwealthyenoughtoownhis/herhome,buthavingnomoneytofeedhimself/herself”.

13. TheOmbudsman,therefore,urgedSWDtoreviewtheaboveissue.



Thecomplainantallegedthatacharitableorganisation(“OrganisationA”)hadillegallytransferreditsPublicSubscriptionPermit(“PSP”)obtainedfromSWDtosomehawkersforprofit-makingactivities.SubsequentmediacoverageoftheallegationwasfollowedbyPoliceinvestigation.However,SWDfailedtoprotectpublicinterestsbysuspendingOrganisationA’spubliccharitysaleimmediately.ThecomplainantconsideredthisacaseofineffectivecontrolonthepartofSWD.

2. ThecomplainanthadalsoreportedtoFEHDahawkerstallinoperationatanapprovedsiteforOrganisationA’scharitysale,wherenosignwasdisplayedtoshowthatthestallwasoperatedbytheorganisationforcharitysale.HewasdissatisfiedthatFEHDstaffhadonlyconductedasiteinspectionwithouttakinganyenforcementaction.

Our Findings

PSP and Hawker Licence Exemption

3. OrganisationshavetoapplyforaPSPfromSWDforcarryingoutpublicfund-raisingactivitiesandtocomplywiththeconditionssetoutinthepermit.Suchconditions include:

• nopartyotherthanthebeneficiaryorganisationsshallmakeanygainsfromthefund-raisingactivities;

• thefund-raisingproceedsshouldbeusedforthepurposestatedintheapplication;

• thefund-raisingworkersshouldwearanametag;and

• thepermitshouldbedisplayedprominentlyattheapprovedsiteforthefund-raisingactivities.

4. Forcharitysales,organisationscanapplytoFEHDforexemptionfromobtainingatemporaryhawkerlicence(“licenceexemption”).

Monitoring of Fund-raising Activities

5. Toprotectpublicinterests,itisSWD’spracticetotakefollow-upactionquicklyonreceiptofcomplaintsaboutnon-compliancewithPSPconditionsbyanycharitableorganisation.Itwillcancel/suspendtheorganisation’sfund-raisingactivitiesimmediatelyifsuchcomplaintsaresubstantiated.However,wherethereisinsufficientevidenceofaseriousbreachofPSPconditionsoracriminaloffenceandthePolicehasalreadystartedaninvestigation,SWDwillonlystopprocessingotherPSPapplicationsfromtheorganisationuntilthePolicecompletesitsinvestigation.

6. Incaseofcharitysales,afterapprovinganapplicationforlicenceexemption,FEHDwillcheckwhetherthesalesactivitiesareobstructingpublicaccessandwhether the operators are related to the charitable organisation granted the licence exemption.Itwillalsoascertainwhetherthecharitysalesareconductedatthesitesstatedintheapplication.Verbalwarningwillbegivenifirregularitiesarefoundandprosecutionwillbeinitiatedifsuchwarningisnotheeded.

Video Recording Provided by Complainant

7. AvideorecordingprovidedbythecomplainantshowedthattheoperatorsatthestallinquestionweresellingitemsotherthanthoseprescribedinthePSPandtheywerenotwearinganynametags.Besides,thePSPwasnotdisplayedprominently.TheFEHDstaffarrivingatthesiterequestedtheoperatorstoproducetherelevantdocumentsandadvisedthemnottocauseanyobstructiontothepublic.


Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”)

CaseNos.OMB2011/4073A

&B–Publicfund-raising

activities

Allegations:

SWD–failingtosuspendthe

charity sale by a charitable

organisation immediately on

learning that the organisation

had allegedly transferred its

PublicSubscriptionPermitto

hawkersforprofit-making

hawkingactivities–

substantiated other than

alleged

FEHD–failingtotakeany

enforcement action against the

suspected unauthorised

hawkingactivities–

unsubstantiated

SWD’s Explanation

8. SWDdidnotwishtocancel/suspendanycharitablefund-raisingactivitiesrashlyastheremightnotbesufficientlegaljustification.TheDepartmentwantedtoactprudentlyandfirstmakesurethattherewasenoughevidenceofaseriousbreachofPSPconditionsoracriminaloffencebytheorganisation.Moreover,SWDconsidereditinappropriatefortheDepartmenttotakeimmediateactionwhilethePoliceinvestigationwasinprogress.

9. Nevertheless,SWDhadstoppedprocessingotherPSPapplicationsfromOrganisationA.IthadbeenliaisingcloselywiththePolice,withaviewtotakingactionwhennecessary.ThePolicelaterconcludedthattherewasinsufficientevidence,soSWDdecidednottotakeanyactionagainstOrganisationA.

FEHD’s Explanation

10. AccordingtoFEHD,ithadconductedsurprisechecksfromtimetotimeafterapprovingOrganisationA’sapplicationforlicenceexemption.UponnotificationfromthePolice,italsoquicklyconductedasiteinspection,andnoirregularitywasfound.Astowhetherasignwasdisplayedatthestallinquestiontoshowthatitwascarryingoutcharitysale,FEHDclarifiedthattheissuewasoutsideitspurview.

Our Comments

11. OurinvestigationrevealedthatSWDhadinfactfollowedupthecomplainant’sallegationbyenquiringofOrganisationAaboutthemediareportandreferringthecasetothePolice.ItwasnotunreasonableofSWDtodecidenottocancel/suspendtheorganisation’sfund-raisingactivities,astherewasinsufficientevidenceofaseriousbreach/acriminaloffencehavingbeencommitted.

12. Nevertheless,thiscasereflectedSWD’slaxmonitoringoffund-raisingactivitiesoforganisationswithPSPs.ThevideorecordingprovidedbythecomplainantshowedthatOrganisationAmighthaveillegallytransferreditsPSPtohawkersforprofit-makingactivitiesandanumberofPSPconditionshadapparentlybeenbreached.SWDshouldhavecheckedwithFEHDthesituationasshownonthevideorecordinganddemandedanexplanationfromOrganisationA.

13. AstowhethertherewasanysignatthestallshowingthatOrganisationAwasconductingacharitysale,weconsideredthatsincetheissuewasoutsideFEHD’spurview,itwasnotimproperofFEHDstafftorefrainfromtakingactionthereandthen.


14. Basedontheaboveanalysis,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstSWDsubstantiatedotherthanalleged,whilethecomplaintagainstFEHDunsubstantiated.

15. However,therewereinadequaciesinFEHD’scriteriaforapprovinglicenceexemptionanditsmonitoringofcharitableactivities.TheDepartmentalsolackedareportingmechanismtoalertSWDofsuspectedirregularitiesofcharitableorganisations.BothSWDandFEHDshouldreviewtheirpracticesinthisregard.

16. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatSWDjudiciouslyhandlecomplaintsagainstcharitableorganisationsfornon-compliancewithPSPconditions.Itshouldtakedecisiveactions(includingsuspensionofthefund-raisingactivities)inseriouscasestoprotectpublicinterests.TheOmbudsmanalsorecommendedthatFEHDnotifyotherrelevantdepartmentswhenirregularitiesarefoundinthefund-raisingactivitiesoforganisationsgrantedlicenceexemptionand,wheredue,initiateprosecutionsagainst“unlicensedhawking”.

A case of inadequate monitoring



Someyearsago,thecomplainantundertooktoactasindemnifierwhenaMrAappliedforaNon-meansTestedLoanfromSFAA.InearlyFebruary2009,SFAAwrotetonotifythecomplainantthatMrAhaddefaultedontheloan.Asindemnifier, the complainant had the obligation to repay the arrears amounting to some$52,800.

2. InlateFebruary2009,thecomplainantappliedtoSFAAforrepaymentbyinstalments.Inmid-March,SFAArepliedthathisapplicationwasbeingprocessed.However,itwasnotuntilmid-October2011thatSFAAsenthimaletterrequestingsupportingdocuments.Moreover,thecomplainantwasaskedtopaynotonlythearrears,butalsotheinterestaccruedbetweenFebruary2009andOctober2011.Thetotalamountwasaround$59,200.

3. ThecomplainantcomplainedagainstSFAAfor:

(1)delayingtheprocessingofhisapplication;and

(2) unreasonablyaskinghimtopaytheinterestaccruedovertheentireperiodwhilehisapplicationwasbeingprocessed.

Response from SFAA

Allegation (1)

4. SFAAadmittedthatitsstaffhadmistakenthecomplainant’sapplicationforrepaymentbyinstalmentsashavingalreadybeenapproved.ItwasnotuntilOctober2011thatthemistakewasdiscoveredandthestaffwrotetothecomplainanttoaskforsupportingdocuments.SFAAapologisedforthemistake.

5. Applicationsforrepaymentbyinstalmentscouldnormallybeprocessedwithinsixtoeightmonths,atimespanthatSFAAconcededwastoolongtomeetpublicexpectation.Toavoidoccurrenceofsimilarincidents,SFAAhadsincedecidedtoadopt a number of improvement measures, such as strengthening communication with debtors; stepping up staff training and supervision; as well as improving case managementanditsreportmechanismthroughanewcomputersystem.

Allegation (2)

6. Thecomplainanthadattheoutsetsignedadeedofindemnitywhichstatedthat he should indemnify Government against all losses incurred in case of default ontheloanbyMrA.Suchlossesincludeinterestontheloan,annualadministrativefeeandlossofinterestearningsduetolatepayment.SFAAmust,therefore,recovertheinterestonthearrearsaccruedduringthesixtoeightmonths’normalprocessingtime.Furthermore,thecomplainantcouldhavefirstrepaidpartofthearrearsaccordingtohisfinancialcapability.Regardingthe$4,100extrainterestandadministrativefeethathadresultedfromSFAA’sdelayinprocessinghisapplication,SFAAhadeventuallygivenarefundtothecomplainant.

Our Comments

Allegation (1)

7. ThecomplainantappliedinlateFebruary2009forrepaymentbyinstalments,butSFAAdidnotaskhimforsupportingdocumentsuntilmid-October2011.Thatwascertainlyaseriousdelay.Inaddition,whileSFAAstaffmistooktheapplicationashavingbeenapproved,SFAAtooknoactionevenwhenthecomplainanthadfailedtopayanysingleinstalment.ThisshowedinadequaciesinSFAA’sinternalmonitoringofcasesofrepaymentbyinstalments.

8. TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(1)substantiated.

Transport Department (“TD”)


Audio-visualsystemonbuses

Allegations:(1)mishandling

complaintsaboutexcessive

soundvolumeoftheaudio-

visual system on franchised

buses–unsubstantiated;(2)

failing to monitor whether the

advertisingtimewaskept

withinthestipulatedratio–

substantiated


Student Financial Assistance Agency (“SFAA”)


Applicationforrepaymentby

instalments


processing an indemnifier’s

application for repaying the

arrears of a loan by instalments

–substantiated;and(2)

unreasonablyaskingthe

indemnifier to pay the interest

accruedduringtheextended

processingperiod–

substantiated

Allegation (2)

9. Asindemnifier,thecomplainantdidhaveanobligationtopaytheinterestonthearrearsandtheadministrativefee.Butinthiscase,hehadbeenaskedtopaymorethanheshould,justbecauseoftheoversightanddelayonthepartofSFAAstaffinprocessinghisapplication.Furthermore,beforeourintervention,SFAAhadinsistedonholdinghimresponsiblefortheinterestaccruedovertheentireperiod.Thatwasindeedunfairtothecomplainant.

10. Inthelightoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(2)substantiated.

Conclusion

11. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthiscomplaintsubstantiated.

12. TheOmbudsmanwaspleasedthatSFAA’slatestimprovementmeasureshadeffectively reduced the processing time for applications for repayment by instalments to within three months after receipt of the necessary supporting documents.


ThecomplainanthadlodgedanumberofcomplaintswithTDsinceFebruary2010abouttheaudio-visualprogrammesshownonfranchisedbusesbeingtoonoisyandcontainingtoomanyadvertisements.HewasdissatisfiedwithTD’slaxcontrolandallegedthattheDepartmenthadfailedtoaddresstheproblemsproperlyandgivehimasatisfactoryreply.

Background

2. BuscompaniesarerequiredtoseekpriorapprovalfromTDtoinstallaudio-visualsystemonfranchisedbuses.Ingrantingthecontracts,TDstipulatesasetofconditions for compliance by the bus companies, including the audio effect, programmecontentsandsubmissionofregularreports.

Response from TD

Allegation (1) – Requirements and Monitoring of Sound Volume

3. TDexplainedthatitwasdifficulttodetermineauniformsoundvolumebecausethebackgroundnoiselevelinsideabuswasaffectedbymanycircumstantialfactors.Therefore,ithadadoptedarelativeapproachtosettingregulatorystandards,stipulatingthatthesoundvolumeofaudio-visualprogrammesshouldbecomparabletotheambientnoiselevelonthebus.Thedifferenceshouldnotexceedtwodecibels.

4. Apartfromrequestingthebuscompaniestosubmitbi-monthlyreportsofrandomchecksonthesoundvolume,TDwouldalsodeployitsstafftoconductsurpriseinspections.Measurementswouldbetakenatdesignatedpositionsontheupperandlowerdeckswhenthebusenginewason.Thestaffwoulduseaspecialsoundlevelmetertomeasurethesoundlevelsbeforeandaftertheaudio-visualsystemwasturnedon.Thedifferencebetweenthetworeadingsshouldnotexceedtwodecibels.Between2007and2011,TDconductedmorethan4,000inspections,andover98%ofthebusesinspectedwereincompliancewiththerequirement.

A case of delay and negligence


5. Onreceiptofcomplaintsaboutexcessivesoundvolume,TDwouldfirstreferthemtothebuscompaniesforinvestigation.ThebuscompanieswouldberequiredtosubmitareporttoTDandadjustthesoundvolumeimmediatelyifitwasfoundtobetooloud.Forrepeatedcomplaints,TDwouldconductitsowninvestigation.

Allegation (2) – Requirements and Monitoring of Programme Contents

6. UnderthecontractsbetweenTDandthebuscompanies,advertisingtimeshouldnotexceed20%,or12minutesperhourofprogrammeservice.

7. TDwouldnotcensortheaudio-visualprogrammesonbusesbeforebroadcasting and had not in the past requested the bus companies to submit regularreportsonadvertisingratio.Inviewofthegrowingconcernsamongpassengersabouttheadvertisingratio,TDstartedconductingrandominspectionseveryquartersinceJune2011.Itsfirstthreeroundsofinspectionsfoundthatinnearlyallcases,thelimitof20%wasexceeded.Inthemostseriouscases,advertisementstookupasmuchas90%oftheairtime.TDhadorderedthebuscompanies to rectify the situation as soon as possible and closely monitored the progressoftheirimprovementmeasures.

8. AfurtherroundofrandominspectionsbyTDinApril2012showedthattheadvertisingratiofellwithinthe20%limitinallcases.

Our Comments

Allegation (1)

9. TDhadissuedseveralrepliestothecomplainantandexplainedhowthebroadcasting sound volume was monitored as well as the objective standard adoptedforsuchpurpose.WeconsideredTD’sexplanationsreasonable.AsitevisitconductedbyourstaffalsoconfirmedthatTDhadfolloweditsestablishedprocedurestoconductregularinspections.ThecomplainantallegedthatTDhadfailedtogiveasatisfactoryreplymainlybecausehedidnotacceptTD’smethodofmeasurement.AsthatwasamatterofTD’sprofessionaljudgement,wewouldnotintervene.

Allegation (2)

10. Advertisingratiowasoneofthebasiccontractualrequirements.ThefactthattheamountofadvertisementsseriouslyexceededthesetlimitreflectedseriousineffectivenessinTD’soriginalmonitoringsystem.Itonlybecameawareoftheproblemafterreceivingcomplaintsfromthepublic.TDclearlyhadmaladministrationinthisaspect.

11. TDhadactivelyfolloweduponthecomplaintsanditsrecentinspectionsfoundthatthebuscompanieshadcompliedwiththerequirements.WeurgedTDtomonitorthesituationcloselyandstepupitsinspectionswherenecessary.

Conclusion

12. TheOmbudsmanconsideredallegation(1)unsubstantiatedandallegation(2)substantiated.Overall,thiscomplaintwaspartiallysubstantiated.

13. Theshowingofaudio-visualprogrammesonbuseswasabusinessdecision.Somepassengersmightfeelthattheirrightswereinfringedbythebroadcastingonbusesorconsideritanoisenuisance.Therefore,itwasappropriateforTDtostipulate certain conditions in the contracts, such as restrictions on sound volume andadvertisingratio.However,TDmustexercisepropercontroltoensurethatthoseconditionsarecompliedwith.

A case of ineffective control



WhenthecomplainantappliedforrenewalofhisvehiclelicenceataTDofficeinSeptember2011,helearnedthatthePolicehadissuedtohimafixedpenaltyticketforillegalparkingearlierinMarchbuthehadneverreceivedit.HealsofoundthatTD’srecordofhisresidentialaddresshadbeenincorrect.ThecomplainantallegedthatTDhadwronglyrecordedhisinformation,causinghimtobechargedanextrafinepluscostsforlatesettlementofthepenalty.

Procedures for Updating Address

2. Toupdatetheaddressrecordofavehicleowner,TDstaffarerequiredtochecktheaddressproofbeforeinputtingtheinformationintothecomputer.Thevehicleownerwillthenbegivenanacknowledgementletterforverificationoftheupdatedrecordonthespot.Ifanymistakesarefound,thevehicleownermayrequestanamendmentandarevisedacknowledgementletterwillbeissued.

Our Findings

Entry of Erroneous Address

3. ThecomplainantfirstregisteredhispresentresidentialaddresswithTDin2002.TheaddressinitiallyrecordedbyTDwascompleteandcorrect.

4. InSeptember2010,thecomplainantappliedforrenewalofvehiclelicencethroughhisagent.Althoughtheaddressprovidedontheapplicationformwasgenerally the same as the originally recorded address, it gave the estate name withoutthebuildingname(“theincompleteaddress”).However,aTDstaffmemberproceededtoupdatetheDepartment’scomputerrecordsbasedontheapplication form, thereby replacing the original correct address with the incomplete address.

5. WebelievedthereasonwhythecomplainantcouldnotreceivethefixedpenaltyticketissuedbythePoliceinMarch2011wasthatitwassenttotheincompleteaddressaccordingtoTD’scomputerrecordsatthattime.

6. InSeptember2011,thecomplainantappliedforrenewalofhisvehiclelicenceataTDofficeinpersonandprovidedhiscompleteaddressontheapplicationform.Noticingthattheaddressdifferedfromthecomputerrecords,theTDstafffollowedthenormalprocedurestoupdatetheinformation(paragraph2)butinputawrongChinesecharacterforthebuildingname.Thecomplainantspottedtheerrorwhenhecheckedtheacknowledgementletterandthestaffrevisedtherecordsimmediately.Whilethemistakeonthatoccasionwasrectifiedrightaway,itnonetheless triggered this complaint, which in turn prompted our investigation and revealedthemistakethathadbeenmadeinupdatingtherecordsoneyearearlier.

Response from TD

7. TDadmittedthatthestaffmemberwhohandledtheapplicationin2010hadprobablyfailedtocheckcarefullytheinformationontheapplicationformagainsttheaddressprooftomakesurethattheymatched,andthuswronglyinputtheincompleteaddressintothecomputer.

8. Topreventrecurrence,TDsubsequentlyreviewedandrevisedtheproceduresforupdatingaddressrecords.Thenewprocedures,effectivefromMarch2012,stipulatedthatstaffmembersmustchecktheaddressprooftoconfirmthatittallieswiththeaddressontheapplicationform.

9. Moreover,TDwouldholdregularinternalbriefingsessionstosharewithfrontlinestaffcasesofmistakenaddressrecordsinordertoremindthemtoexerciseduecareinhandlingsuchapplications.

Transport Department (“TD”)


Incorrect address information

Allegation:failingtoexercise

due care while updating the

complainant’s data, resulting in

an error in his address record

andhencenon-receiptofa

fixedpenaltyticketissuedto

himbythePolice–partially

substantiated


10. TDacknowledgedtheimportanceofmaintainingcorrectaddressrecords.Nevertheless,oversightmightoccurasthestaffhadtohandlealargenumberofapplicationseverydaywithinatighttimeframe.TheDepartmentalreadyapologisedtothecomplainantfortheincident.

Our Comments

11. Ontheapplicationformsubmittedin2010forvehiclelicencerenewal,thecomplainanthadputdownanincompleteaddressbutneitherhisagentnortheTDstaffspottedthemistake.Allthepartiesinvolvedshouldbearcertainresponsibilitiesfortheerror.However,themistakewasnotentirelyunavoidable.The staff concerned should have realised that the original address in the computer records was a complete one while the address provided on the application form wasthesameaddressonlywithoutthebuildingname.Thestaffhadfailedtoexerciseduecareanddiligencebysimplytreatingtheincompleteaddressasanewonewithoutseekinganyclarification.

12. Whenprocessingtheapplicationin2011,anotherstaffmemberhadatypointheaddressinformation.Whilethemistakewasimmediatelyrectifiedbythecomplainant,theincidentshowedthatTDstaffneededtopaymoreattentiontotheaccuracyofaddresses.


13. Thecomplainanthadadutytoprovideacorrectaddressandtoverifytheupdatedinformationuponreceivingtheacknowledgementletter.Nevertheless,thiscasealsorevealeddeficienciesinTD’sprocedures.WhileweappreciatedTDstaff’seffortstoprocessallapplicationsexpeditiously,itwouldbecounter-productivetosacrificetheaccuracyofrecordsforthesakeofefficiency.

14. Overall,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintpartiallysubstantiated.

15. TheOmbudsmanurgedTDtoreviewtheimplementationoftheimprovementmeasuresfromtimetotimeinordertoensuretheachievementofexpectedoutcomes.


A case of staff negligence


The complainant alleged that for many years a piece of unleased Government land (“theSite”)hadbeenunlawfullyoccupiedfordifferentpurposessuchascarparking,butLandsD,thedepartmentresponsibleformanagingthesite,hadfailedtoproperlyhandletheissue.Moreover,thecomplainantnoticedthatTDhadcarriedoutimprovementworksontheSite,whichwouldineffectencourageillegalparking.HADhadalsodonenothingtofollowuptheissueatthedistrictlevel.

Our Findings

The Site

2. TheSitewasapieceofunleasedGovernmentlandattheentranceofavillage(“VillageA”).Unfencedandaccessibletobothpedestriansandvehicles,itwasmanagedbyLandsDandhadnodesignateduse.Sincethe1980s,illegalparkinghadbecomeaproblemontheSite.

3. Between1991and1993,thethenRegionalCouncilhadconsultedHADandLandsDonconversionoftheSiteintorecreationandopenspace(“theconversionworks”).Afternegotiation,localvillagersacceptedtheconversionprojectbutrequestedthatparkingspacesbeprovidedontheSitefortheiruse.

4. Inlate1993,HADwasawarethatthevillageexpansionareaschemenearVillageAwouldbeimplementedanddozensofparkingspaceswouldthenbeavailable.Therefore,HADsuggestedthattheconversionworksshouldcommenceafterimplementationofthescheme.Nevertheless,GovernmentlaterdecidedtoconductacomprehensivereviewoftheNewTerritoriesSmallHousePolicyandrelatedissues.ThevillageexpansionareaschemesofalldistrictsweresuspendedandtheconversionprojectontheSitewasthusshelved.

5. In2010,TD,LandsDandHADreceivedcomplaintsabouttheSitebeingunlawfullyoccupiedfordifferentpurposes.LandsDalsoreceivedcomplaintsaboutthesafetyhazardstopedestriansposedbyvehiclesenteringandleavingtheSite.ItthenaskedTDtodoanassessment.

Responses from the Three Departments

TD

6. TDwasawareoftheperennialproblemofillegalparkingontheSite.Nevertheless,astheSiteanditsusewereoutsidetheDepartment’sjurisdictionanditsmainconcernwasthesafetyofroadusers,TDtooktheviewthattheissuesofillegalparkingandroadsafetyshouldbedealtwithseparately.ConsideringthattherewerealreadyadequateparkingspacesinthevicinityoftheSite,TDdidnotseetheneedtodesignatetheSiteasafee-chargingcarpark.

7. In2010,TDconductedareviewonthevehicleaccesspointandfoundthattheramp at the access point could be a potential hazard to people with mobility impairmentsandwheelchairusers.Therefore,TDproposedsomeimprovementworkswhileretainingthevehicleaccesspoint.

8. Afterpublicconsultationanddiscussionswithvariouspartiesconcerned,TDcompletedtheworkstoaddanti-skidroadsurfacingtoimprovethevehicleaccesspointinApril2012.Asregardsthepotentialhazardsposedbytheramp,TDcompletedimprovementworksatanotheraccesstotheSiteinMay2012forusebythosewithmobilityimpairmentsandwheelchairusers.

Transport Department (“TD”), Lands Department (“Lands D”) and Home Affairs Department (“HAD”)

CaseNos.OMB2011/3089A,B

&C–Unlawfuloccupationof

Governmentlandfor30years

Allegations:

TD–failingtoproperlyresolve

the issues of unlawful occupation

of Government land and illegal

parking–partiallysubstantiated

LandsD–same–substantiated

HAD–same–substantiated


Lands D

9. LandsDnotedthatitcouldinvoketheLand(MiscellaneousProvisions)Ordinance(“theOrdinance”)todealwithunlawfuloccupationofGovernmentland.However,illegalparkingandhawkingwereproblemsofatransientnature.ToinvoketheOrdinance,LandsDwouldhavetogivetheoccupantastatutorynoticeofnotlessthan24hours.Therefore,itwouldnotgiveprioritytothesecasesbutwouldreferthemtothePoliceandtheFoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment(“FEHD”)tofollowup.

10. OnreceiptofthecomplaintsinAprilandMay2010aboutunlawfuloccupationoftheSite,LandsDreferredthemtoFEHDandthePoliceforaction.InviewofthesafetyconcernsandthehistoricalbackgroundoftheSite,LandsDalsoconsultedHADandTDontheproblemofillegalparking.Afterconsideringtheviewsfromthetwodepartments,LandsDdecidedtomaintainthestatus quo.

11. Regardingissueslikethelowwallsandmetalpoststhere,LandsDhadescalatedthecasesfrom“intermediatepriority”to“highpriority”onthelistofsitesforlandcontrolactioninearly2012afterreceivingcomplaintsfromthepublicandthemediaaswellasreferralsfromthisOffice.LandsDalsoputupnoticesthere, ordering the occupants to remove the low walls and metal posts by the specifieddeadline.

HAD

12. HADconsideredthatresidentsnearbywouldraisestrongobjectionifcarparkingontheSitewasprohibited.IfTDdidnotfindvehiclesenteringorleavingtheSitetobepotentialhazardstopedestrians,LandsDmightconsidermaintainingthe status quo.Nevertheless,toresolvetheillegalparkingproblem,LandsDmightconsiderprovidingadditionalparkingspacesaftercheckingtheprogressofthevillageexpansionareascheme.

13. SinceillegalparkingontheSitehadbecomeaperennialproblemandtherewerepubliccomplaints,HADsubsequentlychangeditspositionandadvisedthedepartmentsconcernedtotakeimmediateaction.


14. TheSitewaslocatedrightbetweenbusyroadsandvillagehouses,andyettheGovernment departments concerned had allowed unlawful occupation of Governmentlandforillegalparking,hawkingandotherpurposestocontinueformorethan30years.Theyhadneithertakenanyenforcementactionnorregularisedthoseillegalactivities.Rather,animprovementprojectwascarriedoutatthevehicleaccesspoint,whichwasineffectanencouragementtoillegalparking.ItwasembarrassingtotheAdministration.Weconsideredthatthedepartmentsconcernedshouldbeheldresponsible.

15. AsthedepartmentresponsibleformanagingunleasedGovernmentland,LandsDhadmerelyreliedonotherdepartmentssuchasthePoliceandFEHDtoclampdownontheillegalactivities.Itpaidlittleattentiontotheeffectivenessofthoseactionsandfailedtofollowup.WhiletheremightbeconstraintsundertheOrdinanceforLandsDtotakeenforcementactionagainstactivitieslikeillegalparkingandhawkingasithadstressed,LandsDstillcouldnotstayawayfromtheissuesentirely.Rather,astheproblemshadcontinuedforyearsafteritsreferraltootherdepartments,LandsDoughttofindothersolutions.

16. AftertakingintoaccounttheviewsfromHADandTD,LandsDsimplyreliedonthesuggestionfromHADanddecidedtomaintainthestatus quo.Infact,HADhadalsoadvisedthatLandsDcouldconsiderprovidingadditionalparkingspacestoresolvetheillegalparkingproblem.


17. LandsDhaddelayedgivingprioritytothecase.ThiswouldgivepeopleanimpressionthatLandsDwastryingtofavourthosewithvestedinterestbynottakingenforcementaction,therebyunderminingpublicfaithinthelawenforcementauthorities.IfLandsDconsideredtheconditionoftheSitetolerable,itshouldconsiderregularisingitsothatnecessarycontrolactioncouldbetakenandreasonablerentcollected.

18. WedidnotacceptthatTDshouldhandletheissuesofillegalparkingandroadsafetyseparately.EventhoughtheproblemofillegalparkingontheSiteshouldberesolvedinlinewiththedecisionofthelandcontrolauthority,TDshouldrenderassistance.AsillegalparkingontheSitehadexistedfordecades,ifTDcontinuedtocitetheavailabilityofparkingspacesinthevicinitywhenassessingwhethertheSiteshouldbedesignatedasafee-chargingcarpark,thelong-standingproblemofunlawfuloccupationoftheSitecouldhardlyberesolved.IfTDbelievedthattherewereadequateparkingspaces,itshouldindeedrefutethesuggestionfromHADandsupporttheeliminationofillegalparking.

19. Moreover,whileTDdidnotseetheneedtoprovideadditionalparkingspacesontheSite,itproposedimprovementworksinordertoensurepedestriansafetyand maintain the status quo.WhatTDdidwasself-contradictoryandredundant. Itcouldalsobeperceivedasameasuretobenefitthosewithvestedinterest.

20. Expectingstrongoppositionfromthevillagers,HADsuggestedthatLandsDshould maintain the status quoiftherewasnoroadsafetyhazards.ThishadbecomeaconvenientexcuseforLandsDnottotakeenforcementandcontrolactions.WhileitwasthedutyofHADtoreflectthevillagers’viewsandexpectations,weconsideredthatHADshouldbalancetheviewsofdifferentpartiesandfindasensible,reasonableandlawfulsolution.


21. Inviewoftheabove,TheOmbudsmanconsideredthecomplaintagainstTDpartiallysubstantiatedandthecomplaintsagainstLandsDandHADsubstantiated.

22. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthat:

TD

(1) takeabroaderperspectiveinitsfuturediscussionswithotherdepartmentsregardingthelong-termsolutiontotheunlawfuloccupationof Government land and consider the opinions of various parties, such as thefeasibilityofregularisingillegalparking;

Lands D

(2) activelyliaiseanddiscusswithHAD,TD,thePoliceandotherdepartmentsconcernedforalong-termsolutiontotheunlawfuloccupationoftheSite;

(3) liaiseanddiscusswithotherdepartmentsconcernedonwaystodeterminethetemporaryandlong-termusesoftheSite;and

HAD

(4) closelyfollowuptheproblemofunlawfuloccupationoftheSiteandliaisewiththedepartmentsconcerned,localorganisationsandvillagerstoseektemporaryandpermanentsolutionstotheproblem.

23. TheOmbudsmanwaspleasedtonotethatthethreedepartmentsconcernedacceptedourrecommendations.

A case of rigid attitude and evasion of responsibility


Summaries of Selected Cases Concluded by Inquiry(Whereapplicable,thespecificaspectofmaladministrationestablishedis


Annex

9

Estate Agents Authority (“EAA”)


Delayincomplainthandling

Allegations:(1)failingto

inform the complainant in

writing of the progress and

results of investigation into her

case;(2)failingtocallbackthe

complainant regarding her

telephonemessages;and(3)

delay in reviewing her case on

thepretextofcasecomplexity



Environmental hygiene

problems caused by parallel

traders

Allegation:failingtotake

enforcement action against

parallel traders littering on the

street

A case of inadequacy in procedures


InMarch2009,thecomplainantlodgedacomplaintwithEAAagainstarealestateagency.EAA,however,nevergaveheranywrittenreplyregardingtheprogressandresultsofitsinvestigation.

2. InMarch2011,thecomplainantenquiredaboutthecaseprogressattheEAAofficeinpersonandrequestedareviewatoncewhenshelearnedthatEAAfoundhercomplaintunsubstantiated.Subsequently,shetelephonedEAArepeatedlybutnooneansweredhercalls.SheleftamessageeverytimebutEAAstaffneverreturnedhercalls.

3. Moreover,EAAstafftoldherinJune2012thatreviewofhercasewasnotyetcompletedduetothecomplexityofthecaseandthatEAAneededtowaitforareplyfromtherealestateagencyinvolved.Thecomplainantconsideredthatmerelyanexcuseofthestafftodelayreviewofhercase.

Response from EAA

Allegation (1)

4. EAAhadactuallycompleteditsinvestigationintothecasebytheendof2009andissuedawrittenreplyinJanuary2010.Sotherewasnodelay.Nevertheless,astaffmembermadeamistakewhileinputtingthecomplainant’saddressintothecomputer.Thereplywasthusdeliveredtoawrongaddressandthecomplainantneverreceivedit.

5. SinceherrequestforreviewofthecaseinMarch2011anduntilJuly2012,thecomplainanthadvisitedEAAinpersontentimestosubmitsupplementaryinformationorenquireofreviewprogress.Assuch,thecaseofficerdeemedawrittenreplyontheprogressunnecessary.Moreover,givingverbalupdatestoacomplainantwasinkeepingwithEAA’sinternalguidelines.

Allegation (2)

6. EAAconfirmedthatthecomplainanthadcalledninetimesandonlyononeoccasionwasabletospeakdirectlywiththecaseofficer.Fortheothereighttimes,shehadleftamessagebutthecaseofficerdidnotreturnhercalls.ThatwasaviolationofEAA’sperformancepledge.

Allegation (3)

7. Thecaseofficerhadexplainedtothecomplainantthathercasewasrathercomplicated.EAAhadalreadyenquiredwiththepropertydeveloperinquestionandwasstillawaitingareply.Besides,EAAneededtointerviewthepersonsinvolvedagainandfollowupthecaseinwriting.Consequently,itwasnotuntilSeptember2012thattheinvestigationwascompleted.Nevertheless,EAAadmittedtodelayinwritinguptheinvestigationreport.

8. Inshort,EAAadmittedthattherewereinadequaciesinitshandlingproceduresandcommunicationwiththecomplainantduringitsreviewofhercase.Inthisconnection,EAAhadtakenseveralimprovementmeasures,includingsteppingupstaff training, enhancing its case monitoring mechanism and upgrading its computersystem.

Our Comments

9. TheOmbudsmanconsideredthatforallegations(1)and(2),thecomplainantdidnotreceiveEAA’sreplybecauseEAAstaffhadmadeamistakewhileinputtingtheaddressintothecomputer.Theywereinsensitiveandfailedtoconfirmsubsequently with her the correct correspondence address and provide her a copy ofitswrittenreply.Inaddition,thecaseofficerdidnotcallbackthecomplainantalthoughshehadleftamessagetimeandagain.Suchperformancewasdisappointing.

10. Asforallegation(3),TheOmbudsmanconsideredthatalthoughthecasewasrathercomplicatedandmighttakeEAAalongertimetoinvestigate,therewasindeeddelayonthepartofEAAinthatitdidnotproceedspeedilytoconcludethecaseandwriteupitsreportuponcompletionofitsinvestigation.


Thecomplainant,aSheungShuiresident,hadcomplainedrepeatedlytoFEHDabout the environmental hygiene problems caused by the numerous parallel traders litteringonthepavementunderaflyover(“theSpot”)inthedistrict.HewasdissatisfiedthatFEHDhadonlyarrangedforitscontractortoclearthelitterorcleansetheroadsurfacewithstreetwashingvehicles,buthadnottakenanyenforcement action against the offenders, such that the littering problem remained unresolved.

Response from FEHD

2. FEHDexplainedthatafterreceivingthecomplainant’scomplaints,ithadworkedwiththePolicetocarryoutseveraljointenforcementoperationsattheSpot.ThemeasurestakenbyFEHDinsuchoperationsincludedissuanceofNoticestoRemoveObstructiontothepartiesconcerned,seizureofarticlescausingobstructiontostreetsweepingwork,andissuanceoffixedpenaltynoticestopeoplelitteringorspittingonthestreet.FEHDhadalsoarrangedforitscontractortocleanuptheSpotaftereachjointoperation.Moreover,alargenumberoffixedpenalty notices had been issued to people littering or spitting on the street during FEHDofficers’routinepatrolsinthearea.

Annex9 SummariesofSelectedCasesConcludedbyInquiry


3. FEHDundertooktocontinueitsmonitoringofthesituation.Wherewarranted,it would step up enforcement actions and carry out joint operations again with relevantdepartmentstofurtherimprovetheenvironmentalhygienethere.

Our Comments

4. Nonetheless,thecomplainantindicatedtousthatthelitteringproblemcontinuedandtheenvironmentalhygieneconditionattheSpothadnotimproved.Inthislight,weurgedFEHDtokeepaconstantwatchovertheSpotandbereadytotakerigorousenforcementactions.


On5June2012,HDheldapublicconsultationforumtosolicitviewsonadevelopmentplanfromindividualsandorganisationsinthelocalcommunity.On2June,thecomplainantreceivedfromHDaninvitationletterdated31May,inwhichtherecipientwasrequestedtoreplyby1Juneifinterested.ThecomplainantconsideredthatHDhadfailedtosendouttheinvitationsinatimelymannerandsetanunreasonabledeadlineforreply.

Response from HD

2. HDexplainedthatthepublicconsultationforumwasorganisedbyitsconsultantandinvitationshadbeensentoutonetotwoweeksbeforethedateoftheforum.Toattractmorelocalattentiontothematter,theconsultantsentoutanotherbatchofinvitationstotheresidentsofnearbyhousingestateson31May.HDadmittedthatitsconsultanthadsetanunreasonabledeadlineforreplyandapologisedtothecomplainant.

Our Comments

3. ItwasrecognisedthatthesecondbatchofinvitationssentoutbytheHDconsultant was intended to encourage more participation of local residents in the forum.Yet,sendingoutthelettersonlyfivedaysbeforetheforumandrequestinginterested parties to reply within a day was clearly too hasty and would inevitably castdoubtonthesincerityofHD’sconsultation.

4. WeconsideredthatHDshouldurgeitsconsultanttobemorecarefulinthearrangementoflocalconsultationandmakethoroughplanstoavoidrecurrenceofsimilarproblems.



Improper consultation

arrangements

Allegation:failingtosendout

invitations to a consultation

forum in a timely manner and

setting an unreasonable

deadline for reply

A case of ineffective enforcement action

A case of failure to properly monitor outsourced work

Examples of Improvement Measures Introduced by Organisations Following Our Inquiry or Investigation

Annex

10

(a) Guidelines for clarity, consistency or efficiency in operation

Organisation* (Case reference)

Administrative Enhancement

FEHD(2011/4847)

Guidelines on handling of food complaints revised to provide clearer instruction to staff on the circumstancesrequiringimmediatecollectionoffoodsamplefortestingand/orrequestforthefoodshop/restauranttostopsellingthefood

FEHD(2012/1182)

Clearerguidelinesanddetailedinstructionsissuedformoreefficienthandlingofcompensationclaims by members of the public

GS(FSTB)(2011/1396)

GuidelinesrevisedtorequirestafftomakereferencetoprecedentcasesinassessingapplicationsforwaiveroffeesforfireservicecertificatesrequiredforissuanceofTemporaryPlacesofPublicEntertainment Licences, to achieve consistency

HA(2011/3172)

ClearerinstructionstostaffthatapplicationsformedicalreportssupportedbyChinesemedicalpractitioners are acceptable

HD(2009/4758)

Newguidelinesdrawnuptoensurethatcasesofdog-keepinginpublichousingoncompassionate grounds are properly followed up by staff

HD(2011/2609)

GuidelinesissuedtoensurethatPublicRentalHousingflatsareallocatedonlywhenissuedwithavalidElectricalCompletionCertificatebyaregisteredelectricalcontractor

IRD(2010/1671)

NewmeasureimplementedtosuspendtheissueofPropertyTaxDemandNoticetoavoidconfusiontotaxpayerselectingforpersonalassessment,andtonotifytaxpayersofthesetoffoftheirunclaimedrefundsagainsttheirothertaxliabilities

IRD(2012/0051)

Internal guidelines revised to improve internal coordination among different sections in handling taxmattersofthesametaxpayer

LandsD (2010/5282)

Guidelinesrevisedtoensuretimelyprocessingofapplicationsforex-gratiacompensationarisingfrom land resumption

LCSD(2010/0492)

Theon-lineDirectPurchaseManagementSystemenhancedforbettermonitoringofquotationexercises,includingthoseforpurchaseswithshortquotationperiods

PO(2012/2169)

Aprescribedformforpostingparcelsrevisedtobetterreflectinternationalpostalregulationsgoverning return of undelivered parcels

SWD(2011/2856)

Guidelines drawn up advising staff either to obtain written confirmation from service users who requesttokeeptheirpersonalinformationconfidentialortodocumentclearlysuchrequests

SWD(2011/3522)

Selfmedicationrecordsheetsofinmatesofnursinghomeenhancedsuchthatinmaterefusalstohand in medicine prescribed by outside doctors to the nursing home for custody are properly recorded


BD(2011/4454)

(i) Staffandconsultantsrequiredtomakeproperrecordsofimportantobservationsduringinvestigationofseepagecomplaintsandtakeprecautionarymeasurestopreventdamagetoprivate property when conducting seepage tests;

(ii) Standardpracticeestablishedwherebyacopyofthe“identificationletter”showingthecontact information of the responsible office and consultant will be issued to the flat owner under investigation of seepage complaints

DH(2012/0361)

SpecialmeasureintroducedbytheTobaccoControlOfficetoarrangeinspectionofvenueshortlyafterreceiptofreportofillegalsmokingwherethesmokingbehaviourisexpectedtocontinuefora long period of time

FEHD(2010/2053)

Newguidelinesintroducedallowingusersofcrematoriumfacilitiestomakeon-the-spotapplications for filming the funeral

FEHD(2012/1416)

ProceduresrevisedtoavoiddelayinissuingdemandnotesandtoallowsufficienttimefortheresponsiblepartiestopaybeforethedeadlinethecostsforprivateworksdonebyFEHDforthem(suchasremovalofroadsidebanners)

GS(LWB)(2012/2213)

ProgrammelaunchedtopromotetheRegistrationCardforPeoplewithDisabilitiestodisabledpersonsreceivingservicesfromSWDandassistanceprovidedtofacilitatetheirapplicationfortheCard

HD(2012/3938)

Proceduresforlettingcarparkingspacesstreamlinedtoensuretimelydeliveryofleaseagreements to tenants

IPD(2012/2840)

Timeframesetforcheckingapplicationsfortrademarkregistration

IRD(2012/2362)

MonitoringofpropertytransactioncasesstrengthenedbyrequiringSeniorAssessortoreviewregularlythehighriskcasesandcasesoutstandingfor24months

LandsD(2010/1203&2010/2142)

Newmeasurestoimprovetheefficiencyinhandlingrequestsforpruningofroadsidetrees,includingcompilingmonthlyreportstokeeptrackofoutstandingcases;creationoffourComplaintsLiaisonOfficerposts;andcontractingoutthetreemanagementrelatedduties

LandsD(2012/3542)

ProceduressimplifiedandtimeforpreparingLotIndexPlansbytheSurveyandMappingOfficeshortenedtoexpeditetheprocessingofapplicationsforexcavationpermits

LCSD(2010/5012)

Library system enhanced to cater for eligible readers to renew borrowing of library items via internet

LCSD(2012/0196)

Newmeasureadoptedbymanagementcontractorsofsportsandrecreationalfacilitiestofacilitatemembersofthepublictodistinguishthestaffdelegatedtheauthoritytochecktheidentitydocuments of facility users

TD(2008/1857&2010/2074)

Newarrangementintroducedusingnumberplatestoidentifythebuyersinauctionsofvehicleregistrationmarks

TD(2012/2206)

Forapplicationsfordrivingexaminationsubmittedbyapplicantswithoutstandingdebts,agraceperiod introduced for the applicant to settle the debt before decision to reject application

WSD(2009/4508)

Athoroughcheckingexerciseconductedinabuildingwithmisplacementofwatermetersidentifiedtoensureall300oddwatermeterswerenotmisplacedbecauseofsystemicfaults;instruction on the installation of new water meters drawn up to strengthen staff monitoring and reduce the chance of misplacement of water meters

WSD(2009/4751)

ComputersystemenhancedtoenabletransferofinformationprovidedbyapplicantsonlinetoWSD’srespectiveunit(s)forfollow-upandassignmentofanapplicationnumbertoeachonlineapplicationtofacilitatebettercommunicationbetweenWSDandtheapplicant

WSD(2008/4817)

Guidelines on handling returned mails drawn up and computer system enhanced to avoid repeatedlysendingwaterbillsfortheex-occupiertoanaddressofthenewoccupier

WSD(2009/0031)

Guidelines drawn up to clearly define the observation period so as to standardise the assessment method for underpaid water charges in cases involving defective water meters, and to avoid delay in recovering charges

(b) Better arrangements for inter-departmental coordination



DSD(2011/2658A)

AcoordinatingmeetingconvenedwithHyDandCEDDtoclarifytheactiondepartmentoncomplaintsaboutgrassonlandbetweenriverbanksandpedestrianpathways

EU(2010/1203&2010/2142)

Anewsystemintroducedtoalertthedirectoratestaffofdepartmentsundercomplainttocasesoutstanding for over three months

EU,LandsD,HyDandTD

(2010/2027-28&2010/5147-48)

InrespectofmaintenanceresponsibilitiesforinfrastructureitemsalongtheWestRailline:(i) jointreviewconductedbyHyDandLandsDontheirdepartmentalrecordstoensurethatall

relevant parties have proper records on the apportionment and handover of maintenance responsibilitiesandthattherespectivedistrictmaintenance/landofficesareinformedofthelocationofthesourcedocuments;guidelinesdevelopedfor1823CallCentretohandlerelated complaints; and

(ii) mechanismdevelopedbyTD,HyDandLandsDforbettercoordinationamongthemandMTRCorporationLimitedoverdisputesorcomplaintsconcerningsharedmaintenanceresponsibilities

SWD(2011/5096B)

CommunicationchannelwithHDsetuptoensureefficienthandlingofapplicationsforcompassionate rehousing

(c) Measures for better public enquiry/complaint handling



AFCD(2011/0470)

Guidelinesonhandlingofpublicenquiries/requestsforpersonalinformationofdogownersindog bite cases drawn up for staff compliance

CC(2010/2855&2010/4026)

Guidelines revised stating clearly the time limit for consideration of closing an unresolved complaintcaseandworkarrangementsforstaffonleaveorresignation;also,computersystemimproved and temporary posts added to monitor and enhance the effectiveness of handling complaint cases

DH(2010/5326)

Guidelines issued to advise staff to give the office telephone numbers of staff to members of the publiconrequest;staffdesignatedtoreceiveandhandlefaxandemailsfromthepublic

(d) Measures for better client services



AFCD(2010/3730)

Monitoringmeasuresimplementedtoensurethatnoticespostedinanatureeducationcentrearecheckedandapprovedbeforeissue

Annex10 ExamplesofImprovementMeasuresIntroducedbyOrganisationsFollowingOurInquiryorInvestigation


HA(2012/2864)

Noticepostedathospitalstoinformpatientsaboutthepossiblearrangementofallowingstudentstoobservemedicalexaminations

JA(2012/0250)

To provide on Judiciary’s website information on the commencement of accrual of interest on debt judged by the court

LCSD(2009/3118)

Noticepostedatthefree-of-chargehard-surfacedsoccerpitchesremindingthepublicoftherightforpriorityuseofthepitchesbyholdersofcheck-inpermitsduringbookedsessions

RVD(2012/2786)

Applicationformforinformationontheratablevaluesofapropertyrevisedtostateclearlythedifferent prices charged for different modes of applications

TD(2011/3904)

ArrangementputinplaceforearlydiscussionswithallpartiesconcernedaboutroadclosurearrangementsduringChingMingandChungYeungfestivalstoenableearlyannouncementsandwider publicity of the arrangements through radio and press releases

TD(2012/2206)

Areminderaddedinthedebtrecoveryletterstoalertdebtorsthatalltheirfuturelicensingapplications would not be processed until outstanding debts are settled

WSD(2007/5719)

Waterbillmessagerevisedtoincludemoredetailedinformationofthewateraccount,toalerttheconsumertocontactWSDiftheconsumptionisconsideredoverestimated,andtohighlighttheoverduewaterchargeandthehigh/lowwaterconsumptionreminder

(h) Training for staff



LCSD(2010/0492)

Seminarsconductedforstaffengagedinquotationexercisesandcircularsissuedtoremindthemoftheproperproceduresandrequirementsinconductingquotationexercises

LCSD(2010/3572)

Enhancement training organised to familiarise frontline staff with the guidelines and instructions onthehandlingofapplicationsfordisplayingpostersinLCSDvenues

SWD(2011/5096B)

Stafftrainingstrengthenedtoenhanceunderstandingofrelevanthousingpolicyandproceduresto ensure efficient handling of applications for compassionate rehousing

* see Table 4 for the full name of the organisation against the acronym.

(e) Measures for more effective regulation or control



DH(2007/2123)

Discussionstartedwithasubventedorganisationtochangethesubventionmodefrom“deficiencygrant”to“discretionarygrant”tosuitthelevelofGovernmentsupervisionappropriate for the organisation

EAA(2012/2637)

Double-checkingproceduresandbring-upsystemimplementedtoenhancedataverificationandcomplaint handling

FEHD(2009/1981)

Enforcementactionagainstillegalextensionofbusinessareaofnewsstandsstrengthenedbycarryingoutmorefrequentinspections,removingillegallyextendedstructuresimmediatelyandinvokingthe“MechanismforCancellationofHawkerLicences”

LandsD(2011/0502)

Guidelinesforhandlingapplicationsforgraverepairs/rebuildsrevisedtospecifyclearlyintheapprovalletterthepermittedsizeofthegravetopreventillegalextension

LandsD(2012/0120)

TimeframesetfortakingactionsagainstillegaloccupationofGovernmentlandfornon-prioritycases

LCSD(2010/0510)

ThetermsintheGeneralWorksPermitforworkscarriedoutinhistoricalmonumentsrevisedforbetter clarity, with briefing sessions given to frontline staff as well as historical site owners; new teamformedtoensurenounauthorisedworkswillbecarriedoutinhistoricalsites

TD(2011/3137)

Monitoringoftheproportionofadvertisementonthebroadcastingsystemonbussteppeduptoensurethatitwillnotexceedthe20%thresholdstipulated

(f) Clearer and more reasonable rules



HA(2010/0706)

BookingarrangementsatSpecialistOut-patientClinicsimproved:(i) forpatientsrequestingtochangetheirbookingstoanotherhospitalduetomoveofhome,

thereceivinghospitalwillasfaraspossiblearrangeabookingclosetothebookingdateofthe original hospital;

(ii) thevalidityperiodofallreferrallettersisstandardisedtothreemonths;and(iii) aremarkisaddedinthereferrallettertoremindpatientsofthevalidityperiod

LCSD(2009/3143&2010/1986)

Guidelinesonthebookinganduseofnon-fee-chargingfacilitiesrevisedtoensurefairnessintheallocationofthefacilitiesbetweenorganisationsandindividualsduringpeakhours

LCSD(2010/1483&2010/1543)

Asetofnewregulationsclarifyingtheuseoffreescanningandphoto-copyingservicesincomputer resources centre drawn up and promulgated to all readers

(g) Clearer and more timely information to the public



BD(2010/2353(I))

Internalguidelineslaiddownforphotographsandsketchplanstobeincludedintheinvestigationreports on water seepage to be sent to people requesting the report for purpose of resolving the water seepage problem

FEHD(2012/3209)

FEHD’senquiry/complainthotlinedisplayedonallvehiclesofstreetcleansingcontractorstoassistFEHDinmonitoringtheperformanceofthecontractors

Annex10 ExamplesofImprovementMeasuresIntroducedbyOrganisationsFollowingOurInquiryorInvestigation



InearlyMay2012,thecomplainantusedPO’sSpeedpostservicetosendfivecansofpowderedformulamilktohisrelativeinmainlandChina.Whentheparcelwasdeliveredtothedestination,however,itwasdamagedwithmilkpowderleakingout.Inresponsetohisenquiry,POindicatedthat,basedonareportissuedbytheMainlandpostalauthority,thedamagehadbeencausedbyinadequatepackingandthusnocompensationwouldbepayable.ThecomplainantwasdissatisfiedthatPOhaddelayedformorethanamonthbeforegivinghimareplyandthatthemailitemnumbercitedinthereplyletterwaswrong.POhadalsorefusedhisrequest for a copy of the damage report on the ground that it was an internal document.

2. ThecomplainantthenobtainedacertificatedirectlyfromthelocaldeliveryofficeinmainlandChinathroughhisrelative.Thecertificatestatedthattheexternalpackingoftheparcelwasintactbut,onopeningthelids,theinnersealsoftwocanswerefoundtohavebeencompletelybroken.Itwassuspectedthatthedamagewascauseddeliberately.ThecomplainantqueriedwhyPOhadnotmentioned such things in its reply letter and alleged that it had provided an untrue statement.

Response from PO

3. POadmittedthatithadreceivedthemailitemdamagereportfromChinaPoston22May.Accordingtoitsestablishedprocedures,POshouldhaverespondedtothecomplainantwithinoneweek.However,becauseofshortageofstaff,itwasnotuntil28JunethatPOcontactedhimbytelephoneandthenissuedawrittenreplythenextday.Unfortunately,POmadeamistakewhencitingthemailitemnumberinitsletter.Itre-issuedtheletterwiththenumbercorrectedon4Julybutnoexplanationwasgiven.POapologisedtothecomplainantforthemisunderstandingcaused.

4. Asdamagereportsreceivedfromoverseaspostaladministrationscouldnotbereleased without their authorisation, such reports were generally for internal use onlyandsoPOinitiallyrefusedthecomplainant’srequest.ThecomplainantlatersubmittedaformundertheCodeonAccesstoInformation(“theCode”)torequestthedamagereport.AfterobtainingtheconsentofChinaPost,POthenprovidedhimwithacopy.

5. Properandsufficientpackingisapre-conditionforcompensationunderthetermsofSpeedpostservice.Whenacceptingaparcelforposting,POisnotempoweredtoopenitforcheckingandthesenderissolelyresponsibleforproperpackingoftheitemsinside.Inthiscase,POmainlyreliedonthedamagereportmentioned above to assess the parcel’s condition when it arrived at the destination anddeterminethecompensationliability.POhadnotseenthecertificateobtainedby the complainant before giving him a reply at the end of June and our referral of hiscomplaint.Subsequently,POsoughtfurtherclarificationfromChinaPost,whichstated clearly that the two documents concerned were not contradictory and reiteratedthatthepackingoftheparcelwasfaulty.

Our Comments and Conclusion

6. TheCoderequiresGovernmentdepartmentstoactivelyprovidethepublicwithGovernment-heldinformationasfaraspossible,unlesstherearereasonstorefusedisclosureasstatedinPart2oftheCode.

7. WenotedthatPOhadfailedtogiveareplytothecomplainantwithinthespecifiedtimeframe.IthadalsofailedtocomplywiththeCodeinwithholdingthedamage report on the ground of internal document without first ascertaining the intentoftheMainlandpostaladministration.EventhoughthecomplainanthadnotmadetherequestforinformationundertheCodeinitially,POwasstillobligedtoactincompliancewiththeCode.Itshouldhavetakentheinitiativetoseekthethirdparty’sconsentandreleasetheinformationassoonaspossible.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredbothallegations(1)(delayinreply)and(2)(refusaltoprovidereport)substantiated.

8. WeagreedthatthereplyletterissuedbyPOattheendofJunewasbasedontheinformationavailablethen.WhilePOmadeamistakeinthemailitemnumber,therewasnoevidenceofanuntruestatement.Thecertificatesubsequentlyobtained by the complainant provided certain details which seemed to be different fromthoseinthedamagereport,butChinaPostalreadyreiteratedthatthepackingoftheparcelwasfaulty.Fromtheperspectiveofpublicadministration,POwasnotimproperincitingitsserviceconditionsandrefusingtopayanycompensation.TheOmbudsman,therefore,consideredallegation(3)partiallysubstantiated.

9. Overall,thecomplaintwaspartiallysubstantiated.

Recommendations

10. TheOmbudsmanrecommendedthatPO:

(1) reviewthemeasuresformanagingenquiriesaboutmailitems,suchasenhancing its computer system by adding an alert function to reduce backloganddelayofcases;and

(2) drawupinternalguidelinestoensurethatitsstafffollowtheCodewhenhandling requests for information, and formulate proper procedures to scrutinisedecisionsofrefusingtoreleaseinformation.

Summary of Selected Case on Code on Access to Information(Whereapplicable,thespecificaspectofmaladministrationestablishedis


Annex

11

Post Office (“PO”)

CaseNo.OMB2012/2439(I)

–Releaseofdamagereport


responding to the

complainant’senquiry–

substantiated;(2)unreasonably

withholding a damage report

issuedbytheMainlandpostal

administration–substantiated;

and(3)citingawrongmail

item number in its reply letter

and allegedly providing an

untruestatement–partially

substantiated

A case of delay and unreasonable withholding of information

Annex11 SummaryofSelectedCaseonCodeonAccesstoInformation


Achievement of Performance Pledges(1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013)

Annex

12

(A) Enquiries*

Response Time

By telephone or in personImmediate Within 30 minutes

More than 30 minutes

12,065 (100%) 0 0

In writing

Within5 working days

Within6-10 working days


165 (86.8%) 23 (12.1%) 2 (1.1%)

* Excluding enquiries on existing complaints.

(B) Complaints**

Response Time

AcknowledgementWithin 5 working days More than 5 working days

5,075 (98.9%) 56 (1.1%)

** Excluding cases where acknowledgement is not necessary or practicable.

Cases outside jurisdiction or under restriction

Other cases

Cases concluded

Within 10 working days (target: not less

than 70%)

Within 11-15 working days

(target: not more than 30%)


Less than3 months

(target: not less than 60%)

Within 3-6 months

(target: not more than 40%)

More than6 months

822(89.5%)

80(8.7%)

17(1.8%)

3,867(86.3%)

575(12.8%)

40(0.9%)

(C) Outreach talks

Response Time

Requests for outreach talksWithin 10 working days More than 10 working days

7 (100%) 0

Complainants Charter Annex

13

Weendeavourtoprovideahighstandardofservicetothepublic.Infullydischargingourduties,thisOfficehasdrawnupthefollowingCharter:

Our Commitment

• Handlecomplaintsinaprofessional,impartialandefficientmanner• Keepcomplainantsinformedoftheprogressandoutcomeofour

inquiries• Explainourdecisionsclearly• Protectcomplainants’privacy• Treatthepublicwithcourtesyandrespect

ComplainantsnotsatisfiedwithourfindingsmaywritetothisOfficeandstatethegroundsforareviewoftheircases.AnyviewsonindividualstafforourservicesmaybedirectedtotheChiefManagerofthisOffice.Wewilltakefollow-upactionwithprofessionalismandfairness.

Complainants’ Responsibilities

• Stateclearlytheissuesofcomplaint• Providetrueandaccurateinformationinatimelyway• Cooperateinourinquiries• Lodgecomplaintsinareasonablemanner• Treatthestaffwithcourtesyandrespect

Ifcomplainantsarenotcooperative,theprogressand/oroutcomeofourinquiriesmaybeaffected.Insuchcircumstances,wewilltakeproperactionsasappropriate,suchasmakingourdecisiononthebasisofavailableevidenceorterminatingtheinquiry.

148 149TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013 TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013 149TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013148 TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013

Organisation Chart Panel of AdvisersAnnex

14Annex

15

Offi

ce o

f Th

e O

mb

ud

sman

Info

rmat

ion

Te

chn

olo

gy

Sect

ion

Hu

man

R

eso

urc

es

Sect

ion

Gen

eral

an

d

Fin

ance

Sec

tio

n

Exte

rnal

Rel

atio

ns

Sect

ion

Tran

slat

ion

Sect

ion

Team

F

Team

D

Team

C

Dir

ect

Inve

stig

atio

n

Team

2

Ass

essm

ent

Team

Team

E

Team

B

Team

A

Dir

ect

Inve

stig

atio

n

Team

1

Ad

min

istr

atio

n a

nd

D

evel

op

men

t D

ivis

ion

Inve

stig

atio

n

Div

isio

n 2

Inve

stig

atio

n

Div

isio

n 1

Dep

uty

Om

bu

dsm

an

Om

bu

dsm

anPa

nel

of

Ad

vise

rs

Engineering and SurveyingDrChanKaChing,Andrew

MrChanYukMing,Raymond

DrHoChungTai,Raymond

DrHungWingTat

MrLeungKwongHo,Edmund

MrTseKamChuen,Vincent

LegalMrsAnneRCarver

ProfessorJohannesMMChan

ProfessorMJACooray

MrRobertGKotewall

DrTaiYiuTing,Benny

ProfessorWangGuiGuo

Medical and NursingProfessorChienWaiTong

ProfessorLaiKarNeng

ProfessorFeliceLieh-Mak

ProfessorGraceTang

DrWongChungKwong

Social Work and Rehabilitation ServicesProfessorChanLaiWan

ProfessorMaLaiChong,Joyce

MrNgWangTsang,Andy

*Inalphabeticalorderofsurname


Date Visitors

18April2012 MrChenLianfu,DirectoroftheGeneralBureauofAnti-EmbezzlementandBribery,SupremePeople’sProcuratorateofChina,arrangedbytheInformationServicesDepartment

9May2012 DelegatesfromtheSocialCreditSystemConstructionUnitofGuangdongProvincialDevelopmentandReformCommission,arrangedbytheHongKongEconomicandTradeOfficeinGuangdong

10May2012 DelegatesfromtheNationalBureauofCorruptionPreventionofChina,arrangedbytheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption

11May2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonLegalSystemConstruction”forofficialsfromQinghaiProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

15May2012 LegalacademicsfrommainlandChina,arrangedbytheAsianLegalResourceCentre

16May2012 DelegatesfromtheWorkplaceCrimePreventionBranchofDongguanMunicipalPeople’sProcuratorate,GuangdongProvince,arrangedbytheChinaBusinessCentre,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

21May2012 MrDanangGirindrawardana,ChiefOmbudsmanoftheRepublicofIndonesia

24May2012 DelegatesfromtheStateBureauforLettersandCalls,arrangedbytheLiaisonOfficeoftheCentralPeople’sGovernmentintheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion

29May2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCoursebyFudanUniversityforYoungCadres”,arrangedbytheHongKongInstituteofAsia-PacificStudies,theChineseUniversityofHongKong

7June2012 RepresentativesfromtheInstituteofPolicyDevelopment,theCivilServiceCollege,Singapore

11June2012 DelegatesfromWujiangMunicipalDisciplinaryCommittee,JiangsuProvince,arrangedbytheChinaBusinessCentre,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

12June2012 “TrainingSchemeinCommonLawforMainlandLegalOfficials”,arrangedbytheDepartmentofJustice

13June2012 DelegatesfromtheWorkplaceCrimePreventionBranchofDongguanMunicipalPeople’sProcuratorate,GuangdongProvince,arrangedbytheChinaBusinessCentre,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

22June2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonSocialManagement”forcadresfromBeijiaoinShunde,GuangdongProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongInstituteofAsia-PacificStudies,theChineseUniversityofHongKong

26June2012 DelegatesfromtheGyeonggiProvincialGovernment,RepublicofKorea

Visits to the Office of The Ombudsman

Annex

16

Date Visitors

28June2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonAnti-corruptionSupervisionandConstructionofPreventionSystem”forofficialsfromXinjiangUygurAutonomousRegionofChina,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

9July2012 DelegatesfromtheGovernmentInspectorateofVietnam

11July2012 CommonLawScholarshipawardeesfromPekingUniversity,arrangedbytheHongKongBarAssociation

12July2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonPublicAdministrationandCrisisManagement”forofficialsfromCixiinNingbo,ZhejiangProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

17July2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonPreventionandManagementofCrisisintheUrbanisationofCities”forofficialsfromHefei,AnhuiProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

25July2012 DelegatesfromtheDepartmentofSupervisionandInternalAudit,GeneralAdministrationofCustoms,arrangedbytheCustomsandExciseDepartment

1August2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCoursefortheGeneralOfficeofAdministrativeApproval”ofNingbo,ZhejiangProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

8August2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonHumanResourcesDevelopmentandTalentDevelopmentStrategy”forofficialsfromZibo,ShandongProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

14August2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonRuleofLawandGovernance”forofficialsfromtheLegislativeAffairsOfficeofSichuanProvincialGovernment,arrangedbytheHongKongInstituteforPublicAdministration

15August2012 DelegatesfromtheDepartmentofSupervision,ShandongProvince,arrangedbytheChinaBusinessCentre,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

21August2012 Participantsofthe“SeniorManagementProgramme”,arrangedbytheCivilServiceCollege,Singapore

23August2012 DelegatesfromtheDirectorateonCorruptionandEconomicCrime,Botswana,arrangedbytheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption

28August2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonAnti-corruptionandConstruction”forofficialsfromGansuProvincialGovernment,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

14September2012 DelegatesfromtheOfficeoftheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsofKenya,arrangedbytheConsulateoftheRepublicofKenyaintheHongKongSARandMacauSAR

5October2012 Mainlandlawstudentsandnon-governmentalorganisationspersonnel,arrangedbytheAsianLegalResourceCentre

10October2012 MrHuangXianyao,MemberoftheGuangdongProvincialStandingCommitteeandSecretaryoftheGuangdongProvincialCommissionforDisciplineInspection,andotherdelegatesarrangedbytheConstitutionalandMainlandAffairsBureau

12October2012 Participantsofthe“AdvancedProgrammeforChineseSeniorJudges”,arrangedbytheCityUniversityofHongKong

17October2012 DelegatesfromtheSichuanProvincialCommissionforDisciplineInspection,arrangedbytheIndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption

26October2012 StudentsfromStPaul’sCo-educationalCollege

5November2012 Participantsofthe“HongKong-SingaporePermanentSecretariesExchangeProgramme2012”,arrangedbytheCivilServiceBureau

Annex16 VisitstotheOfficeofTheOmbudsman


Date Visitors

6November2012 MrThomasFrawley,NorthernIrelandOmbudsmanandVice-presidentoftheInternationalOmbudsman Institute

7November2012 Participantsofthe“ExchangeProgrammeforMainlandCivilServants”,arrangedbytheHongKongInstituteforPublicAdministration

15November2012 Participantsofthe“PostgraduateCertificateCourseinCorruptionStudies”,arrangedbytheSchoolofProfessionalandContinuingEducation,theUniversityofHongKong

19November2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonOrganisationsintheLowHierarchyandCommunityConstruction”,DalianAdministrativeCollege,LiaoningProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

20November2012 StudentsoftheMasterofLawsProgramme,SingaporeManagementUniversity

3December2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonConstructionProjects,MigrantSettlementandSocialManagement”forofficialsfromGuizhouProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongFinancialServicesInstitute

5December2012 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonAnti-corruptionandConstructionandAdministrativeSupervision”forofficialsfromXian,ShaanxiProvince,arrangedbytheHongKongProductivityCouncil

6December2012 DelegatesfromtheOrganisationDepartmentofBeijing,CommunistPartyofChina,arrangedbytheSchoolofProfessionalandContinuingEducation,theUniversityofHongKong

12December2012 LeadercadresfromYangchun,GuangdongProvince,arrangedbytheSchoolofProfessionalandContinuingEducation,theUniversityofHongKong

20December2012 MrNirjDeva,MemberoftheEuropeanParliamentforUnitedKingdom,ChairmanoftheEuropeanParliamentChinaFriendshipGroup,arrangedbytheInformationServicesDepartment

8January2013 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonProcuratorialWork”forofficialsfromShanxiProvincialPeople’sProcuratorate,arrangedbytheChinaBusinessCentre,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

17January2013 ProfessorCarlosLo,theDepartmentofManagementandMarketing,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity

21February2013 StudentsfromShunTakFraternalAssociationLeungKauKuiCollege

28February2013 LawprofessorsandstudentsfromtheSokaUniversity,Japan,arrangedbytheUniversityofHongKong

4March2013 ProfessorMateSzabo,CommissionerforFundamentalRights,Hungary

5March2013 DelegatesfromtheManagementServicesDepartment,PrimeMinisterOffice,Brunei,arrangedbytheEfficiencyUnit

12March2013 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonInnovationinManagingaTransformingSociety”forofficialsfromtheOrganisationDepartmentofZhuhaiMunicipalCommittee,GuangdongProvince,arrangedbytheSchoolofProfessionalandContinuingEducation,theUniversityofHong Kong

20March2013 Participantsofthe“TrainingCourseonConstructionofService-orientedGovernment”forthePartySchoolofFoshanMunicipalCommittee,arrangedbytheInstituteforEntrepreneurship,HongKongPolytechnicUniversity


Tables


Reporting year1

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

Enquiries 14,005 13,789 12,227 12,545 12,255

Complaints

(a) For processing 6,671 5,869 6,467 6,085 6,349

- Received 5,386[853] 4,803[393] 5,339[627] 5,029[180] 5,501[238]

- Brought forward2 1,285 1,066 1,128 1,056 848

(b) Processed 5,701[1,225] 4,775[402] 5,437[611] 5,237[210] 5,401[235]

Non-pursuable3 3,017[814] 2,560[100] 2,381[11] 2,560[127] 3,116[102]

Pursued and concluded 2,684[411] 2,215[302] 3,056[600] 2,677[83] 2,285[133]

- By inquiry4 2,437[224] 2,086[302] 2,894[524] 2,492[6] 2,094[133]

- By full investigation5 247[187] 126 155[76] 163[61] 169

- By mediation6 0 3 7 22[16] 22

(c) Percentage processed

= (b) / (a)85.5% 81.4% 84.1% 86.1% 85.1%

(d) Carried forward

= (a) – (b)970 1,094 1,030 848 948

Direct investigations

completed6 7 6 5 6

Note 1. From 1 April to 31 March of the next year.

Note 2. Including 96, 34 and 26 re-opened cases in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 respectively.

Note 3. Outside our jurisdiction or restricted by The Ombudsman Ordinance; withdrawn by complainant, discontinued or not undertaken by the Office, e.g. subjudice or lack of prima facie evidence

Note 4. Pursued under section 11A of the Ordinance, for general cases.

Note 5. Pursued under section 12 of the Ordinance, for complex cases possibly involving serious maladministration, systemic flaws, etc.

Note 6. Pursued under section 11B of the Ordinance, for cases involving no, or only minor, maladministration.

[ ] Number of topical cases.

- See “Glossary of Terms” at Annex 1 for detailed definitions of the above terms.

Enquiries received Complaints received

14,00513,789

12,227 12,545 12,255

5,3864,803

5,3395,029

5,501

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Enq

uir

ies/

Co

mp

lain

ts

Reporting year

16,000

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

30.4 % Error, wrong advice/decision

14.6 % Delay/inaction

13.0 % Others (e.g. unclear allegation, general criticism, opinion)

10.7 % Ineffective control

6.8 % Staff attitude (e.g. rudeness, unhelpfulness)

6.5 % Lack of response/reply to complainant/enquirer

5.0 % Negligence, omission

4.2 % Faulty procedures

3.2 % Failure to follow procedures

3.0 % Disparity in treatment, unfairness

2.1 % Abuse of power

0.5 % Selective enforcement

Table 1 Caseload Table 2 Enquiries/Complaints Received

Table 3 Nature of Complaints Processed


Organisation Enquiries Complaints

Agriculture,FisheriesandConservationDepartment (AFCD) 48 166

AirportAuthority (AA) 2 4

ArchitecturalServicesDepartment (ArchSD) 8 11

AuditCommission (Aud) 3 2

AuxiliaryMedicalService (AMS) 2 4

BuildingsDepartment (BD) 298 260

CensusandStatisticsDepartment (C&SD) 2 6

CivilAidService (CAS) 1 1

CivilAviationDepartment (CAD) 5 6

CivilEngineeringandDevelopmentDepartment (CEDD) 6 13

CompaniesRegistry (CR) 32 41

ConsumerCouncil (CC) 62 26

CorrectionalServicesDepartment (CSD) 25 82

CustomsandExciseDepartment (C&ED) 42 22

DepartmentofHealth (DH) 62 40

DepartmentofJustice (D of J) 21 31

DrainageServicesDepartment (DSD) 24 33

ElectricalandMechanicalServicesDepartment (E & MSD) 34 33

EmployeesRetrainingBoard (ERB) 20 16

EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment (EPD) 64 51

EqualOpportunitiesCommission (EOC) 42 36

EstateAgentsAuthority (EAA) 17 10

FireServicesDepartment (FSD) 60 68

FoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment (FEHD) 625 611

GeneralOfficeoftheChiefExecutive’sOffice (GOCEO) 10 13

GovernmentFlyingService (GFS) 1 0

Government Laboratory (Govt Lab) 1 0

GovernmentLogisticsDepartment (GLD) 2 1


GovernmentPropertyAgency (GPA) 3 5

GovernmentSecretariat

- ChiefSecretaryforAdministration'sOffice (GS-CS) 196 141

- CivilServiceBureau (GS-CSB) 8 12

- CommerceandEconomicDevelopmentBureau (GS-CEDB) 78 162

- Commerce,IndustryandTechnologyBureau (GS-CITB) 1 0

- ConstitutionalandMainlandAffairsBureau (GS-CMAB) 9 4

- DevelopmentBureau (GS-DEVB) 11 17

- EducationBureau (GS-EDB) 85 69

- EnvironmentBureau (GS-ENB) 3 2

- FinancialSecretary’sOffice (GS-FSOFF) 2 1

- FinancialServicesandtheTreasuryBureau (GS-FSTB) 33 25

- FoodandHealthBureau (GS-FHB) 1 5

- HomeAffairsBureau (GS-HAB) 13 12

- LabourandWelfareBureau (GS-LWB) 11 8

- SecurityBureau (GS-SB) 3 3

- TransportandHousingBureau (GS-THB) 10 10

HighwaysDepartment (HyD) 48 56

HomeAffairsDepartment (HAD) 105 415

HongKongArtsDevelopmentCouncil (HKADC) 1 3

HongKongExaminationsandAssessmentAuthority (HKEAA) 20 17

HongKongHousingAuthority (HKHA) 19 8

HongKongHousingSociety (HKHS) 31 24

HongKongMonetaryAuthority (HKMA) 28 30

Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) 6 4

HongKongPoliceForce (HKPF) 316 6

HospitalAuthority (HA) 375 200

HousingDepartment (HD) 744 486

Table 4 Distribution of Enquiries/Complaints Received

Table4 DistributionofEnquiries/ComplaintsReceived



ImmigrationDepartment (ImmD) 180 166

IndependentCommissionAgainstCorruption (ICAC) 37 1

InformationServicesDepartment (ISD) 0 2

InlandRevenueDepartment (IRD) 89 60

IntellectualPropertyDepartment (IPD) 3 4

Invest Hong Kong (InvestHK) 0 2

JudiciaryAdministrator (JA) 94 66

Kowloon-CantonRailwayCorporation (KCRC) 1 1

LabourDepartment (LD) 199 115

LandRegistry (LR) 6 9

LandsDepartment (LandsD) 294 334

LegalAidDepartment (LAD) 127 69

LegislativeCouncilSecretariat (LCS) 5 7

LeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment (LCSD) 216 216

MandatoryProvidentFundSchemesAuthority (MPFA) 29 17

MarineDepartment (MD) 12 12

OfficeoftheCommunicationsAuthority (OFCA) 43 47

OfficeoftheTelecommunicationsAuthority (OFTA) 1 0

OfficialReceiver’sOffice (ORO) 35 191

PlanningDepartment (PlanD) 12 16

PostOffice (PO) 92 65

PrivacyCommissionerforPersonalData (PCPD) 56 38

RadioTelevisionHongKong (RTHK) 15 18

RatingandValuationDepartment (RVD) 17 19

RegistrationandElectoralOffice (REO) 39 22

StandingCommissiononCivilServiceSalaries

andConditionsofService,Secretariat(SCCS) 1 0

SecuritiesandFuturesCommission (SFC) 20 15


SocialWelfareDepartment (SWD) 375 210

StudentFinancialAssistanceAgency (SFAA) 59 33

TradeandIndustryDepartment (TID) 3 1

TransportDepartment (TD) 231 216

Treasury (Try) 5 4

UniversityGrantsCommittee,Secretariat (UGC) 2 0

UrbanRenewalAuthority (URA) 24 16

VocationalTrainingCouncil (VTC) 16 11

WaterSuppliesDepartment (WSD) 111 89

Total 6,128 5,404

Note 1. The total number of enquiries and complaints received in Table 1 are 12,255 and 5,501 respectively. They are different from the figures shown in Table 4 because -

(i) enquiries/complaints involving bodies outside The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; and

(ii) complaints involving organisations under Part II of Schedule 1 to The Ombudsman Ordinance but unrelated to The Code on Access to Information

are not shown in Table 4.

Note 2. Organisations under Schedule 1 to The Ombudsman Ordinance with no enquiries/complaints received in the reporting year are not shown.

Table4 DistributionofEnquiries/ComplaintsReceived


350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Nu

mb

er o

f C

ases

Organisations

Table 6 Complaints Pursued and Concluded: Top Ten Organisations

Note 1. "Complaints Pursued and Concluded" are cases handled by way of inquiry, full investigation or mediation.

Note 2. These top ten organisations accounted for 66.9% of the 2,285 complaints pursued and concluded.

Note 3. signifies topical complaints (arising from the same social topics).

322

244

188

160136

112 105 103 94

65

FEHD HD Lands D BD AFCD TD HALCSD SWD HAD

44.4 % Unsubstantiated

32.6 % Partially substantiated

18.9 % Substantiated

4.1 % Substantiated other than alleged

Table 7 Results of Complaints Concluded by Full Investigation: 169 Cases

30.7 % Error, wrong advice/decision

17.7 % Delay/inaction

16.1 % Ineffective control

8.9 % Failure to follow procedures

8.9 % Lack of response/reply to complainant/enquirer

5.7 % Negligence, omission

4.8 % Staff attitude (e.g. rudeness, unhelpfulness)

4.8 % Faulty procedures

1.6 % Others (e.g. unclear allegation, general criticism, opinion)

0.8 % Abuse of power

Table 8 Forms of Maladministration Substantiated by Full Investigation

38.8 % By inquiry

33.7 % Not undertaken

11.2 % Outside jurisdiction

7.0 % Withdrawn/discontinued

5.8 % Restrictions on investigation

3.1 % By full investigation

0.4 % By mediation

Table 5 Distribution of Complaints Processed:5,401 Cases


OrganisationNo. of

complaints

Cases with inadequacies/ deficiencies

found

No. of Ombudsman’s

suggestions for improvement

Agriculture,FisheriesandConservationDepartment 134 117 2

AirportAuthority 3 1 0

ArchitecturalServicesDepartment 3 2 1

AuditCommission 1 0 0

BuildingsDepartment 145 44 3

CensusandStatisticsDepartment 1 0 0

CivilAidService 1 1 0

CivilAviationDepartment 3 0 0

CivilEngineeringandDevelopmentDepartment 5 1 0

CompaniesRegistry 5 2 0

ConsumerCouncil 8 2 2

CorrectionalServicesDepartment 32 0 1

CustomsandExciseDepartment 5 0 0

DepartmentofHealth 24 10 0

DepartmentofJustice 3 0 1

DrainageServicesDepartment 19 0 0

ElectricalandMechanicalServicesDepartment 9 4 0

EmployeesRetrainingBoard 5 1 0

EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment 19 6 2

EqualOpportunitiesCommission 3 0 0

EstateAgentsAuthority 9 2 0

FireServicesDepartment 14 4 0

FoodandEnvironmentalHygieneDepartment 288 159 5

GeneralOfficeoftheChiefExecutive’sOffice 2 1 0

GovernmentPropertyAgency 1 0 0

OrganisationNo. of

complaints


found



GovernmentSecretariat

- ChiefSecretaryforAdministration'sOffice 35 8 8

- CommerceandEconomicDevelopmentBureau 3 0 0

- ConstitutionalandMainlandAffairsBureau 2 0 0

- CivilServiceBureau 2 1 0

- DevelopmentBureau 4 0 0

- EducationBureau 36 8 1

- FinancialServicesandtheTreasuryBureau 10 2 0

- FoodandHealthBureau 4 2 0

- HomeAffairsBureau 1 1 0

-LabourandWelfareBureau 2 1 1

-TransportandHousingBureau 4 0 0

HighwaysDepartment 27 2 1

HomeAffairsDepartment 56 6 0

HongKongExaminationsandAssessmentAuthority 8 2 0

HongKongHousingAuthority 4 1 0

HongKongHousingSociety 6 0 0

HongKongMonetaryAuthority 14 3 0

HongKongPoliceForce 4 1 0

HospitalAuthority 100 31 0

HousingDepartment 237 39 4

ImmigrationDepartment 29 4 1

InlandRevenueDepartment 33 14 6

IntellectualPropertyDepartment 2 1 1

JudiciaryAdministrator 12 0 1

LabourDepartment 43 3 0

Table 9 Results of Complaints Concluded by Inquiry

Table9 ResultsofComplaintsConcludedbyInquiry


OrganisationNo. of

complaints


found



LandsDepartment 165 47 5

LegalAidDepartment 30 7 0

LeisureandCulturalServicesDepartment 99 31 13

MandatoryProvidentFundSchemesAuthority 5 3 0

MarineDepartment 4 0 0

OfficeoftheCommunicationsAuthority 9 2 0

OfficeoftheTelecommunicationsAuthority 1 0 0

OfficialReceiver’sOffice 9 2 0

PlanningDepartment 6 0 0

PostOffice 36 19 2

PrivacyCommissionerforPersonalData 11 2 0

RadioTelevisionHongKong 6 1 0

RatingandValuationDepartment 6 2 0

RegistrationandElectoralOffice 13 5 0

SecuritiesandFuturesCommission 4 0 0

SocialWelfareDepartment 87 16 0

StudentFinancialAssistanceAgency 13 5 1

TelevisionandEntertainmentLicensingAuthority 1 0 0

TransportDepartment 104 23 8

Treasury 1 1 0

UrbanRenewalAuthority 8 3 1

VocationalTrainingCouncil 5 3 1

WaterSuppliesDepartment 50 11 0

WestKowloonCultureDistrictAuthority 1 1 1

Total 2,094 671 73

Note 1. Organisations under Schedule 1 to The Ombudsman Ordinance with no complaints concluded by inquiry are not shown.

Note 2. The Ombudsman may suggest any number of improvement measures in a case, irrespective of whether inadequacies or deficiencies are found after inquiry.

Overall

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

Less than 3 months 72.5% 65.3% 80.1% 83.9% 88.6%

3 – 6 months 26.0% 33.1% 19.3% 15.4% 10.7%

More than 6 months 1.5% 1.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7%

Total 5,701 4,775 5,437 5,237 5,401

By Full Investigation and Other Modes

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

Full investigation

Less than 3 months 10.9% 0.8% 50.3% 4.9% 2.4%

3 – 6 months 73.7% 54.0% 29.0% 77.9% 78.7%

More than 6 months 15.4% 45.2% 20.7% 17.2% 18.9%

Number of complaints 247 126 155 163 169

Other modes

Less than 3 months 75.3% 67.0% 80.9% 86.4% 91.4%

3 – 6 months 23.9% 32.6% 19.0% 13.4% 8.5%

More than 6 months 0.8% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%

Number of complaints 5,454 4,649 5,282 5,074 5,232

Table 10 Complaint Processing Time

YEAR

YEAR

TIME

TIME

A BThe Ombudsman Annual Report 2013The Ombudsman Annual Report 2013

Financial Statementsfor the year ended 31 March 2013

1 2TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013TheOmbudsmanAnnualReport2013

The OmbudsmanFinancialStatementsfortheyearended31March2013

WehaveauditedthefinancialstatementsofTheOmbudsmansetoutonpages3to22,whichcomprisethebalancesheetasat31March2013,thestatementofincomeandexpenditure,statementofcomprehensiveincome,statementofchangesinfundsandcashflowstatementfortheyearthenendedandasummaryofsignificantaccountingpoliciesandotherexplanatoryinformation.

The Ombudsman’s responsibility for the financial statements

The Ombudsman is responsible for the preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view in accordance with Hong KongFinancialReportingStandardsissuedbytheHongKongInstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountantsandforsuchinternalcontrol as The Ombudsman determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,whetherduetofraudorerror.

Auditor’s responsibility

Ourresponsibilityistoexpressanopiniononthesefinancialstatementsbasedonouraudit.Thisreportismadesolelytoyou,inaccordancewithouragreedtermsofengagement,andfornootherpurpose.Wedonotassumeresponsibilitytowardsoracceptliabilitytoanyotherpersonforthecontentsofthisreport.

WeconductedourauditinaccordancewithHongKongStandardsonAuditingissuedbytheHongKongInstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountants.Thosestandardsrequirethatwecomplywithethicalrequirementsandplanandperformtheaudittoobtainreasonableassuranceaboutwhetherthefinancialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement.

Anauditinvolvesperformingprocedurestoobtainauditevidenceabouttheamountsanddisclosuresinthefinancialstatements.Theproceduresselecteddependontheauditor’sjudgement,includingtheassessmentoftherisksofmaterialmisstatementofthefinancialstatements,whetherduetofraudorerror.Inmakingthoseriskassessments,theauditorconsidersinternalcontrolrelevant to the entity’s preparation of the financial statements that give a true and fair view in order to design audit procedures thatareappropriateinthecircumstances,butnotforthepurposeofexpressinganopinionontheeffectivenessoftheentity’sinternalcontrol.AnauditalsoincludesevaluatingtheappropriatenessofaccountingpoliciesusedandthereasonablenessofaccountingestimatesmadebyTheOmbudsman,aswellasevaluatingtheoverallpresentationofthefinancialstatements.

Webelievethattheauditevidencewehaveobtainedissufficientandappropriatetoprovideabasisforourauditopinion.

Opinion

Inouropinion,thefinancialstatementsgiveatrueandfairviewofthestateofaffairsofTheOmbudsmanasat31March2013andofitssurplusandcashflowsfortheyearthenendedinaccordancewithHongKongFinancialReportingStandards.

KPMGCertifiedPublicAccountants

8thFloor,Prince’sBuilding10ChaterRoadCentral,HongKong

16May2013

Independent auditor’s report to The Ombudsman(Established in Hong Kong pursuant to The Ombudsman Ordinance)

Independent auditor’s report to The Ombudsman (continued)(Established in Hong Kong pursuant to The Ombudsman Ordinance)



Note 2013 2012

Income

Government subventions 3 $ 98,985,000 $ 94,157,111

Amortisation of deferred Government subventions 3 2,312,382 2,965,041

Interest income on bank deposits 6,294,324 5,615,522

Other income 45,905 294,246

$ 107,637,611 $ 103,031,920

Expenditure

Operating expenses 4 (92,999,795) (84,439,725)

Surplus for the year $ 14,637,816 $ 18,592,195

Statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 31 March 2013TheOmbudsmanhadnocomponentsofcomprehensiveincomeotherthan“surplusfortheyear”ineitheroftheperiodspresented.Accordingly,noseparatestatementofcomprehensiveincomeispresentedasTheOmbudsman’s“totalcomprehensiveincome”wasthesameasthe“surplusfortheyear”inbothperiods.

Note 2013 2012

ASSETS

Non-current asset

Property, plant and equipment 7 $ 74,197,078 $ 77,050,384

Current assets

Deposits and prepayments $ 2,647,194 $ 667,929

Interest receivable 1,987,288 2,899,494

Time deposits with original maturity over three months 320,712,000 305,327,000

Cash and cash equivalents 8 9,327,656 9,532,837

$ 334,674,138 $ 318,427,260

Total assets $ 408,871,216 $ 395,477,644

LIABILITIES

Non-current liabilities

Contract gratuity payable - non-current 9 $ 4,616,944 $ 3,677,790

Deferred Government subventions - non-current 3 69,785,758 71,599,978

$ 74,402,702 $ 75,277,768

Current liabilities

Other payables and accruals $ 2,154,195 $ 2,084,017

Contract gratuity payable - current 9 4,640,248 4,581,442

Deferred Government subventions - current 3 1,814,220 2,312,382

$ 8,608,663 $ 8,977,841

Total liabilities $ 83,011,365 $ 84,255,609

Statement of income and expenditurefor the year ended 31 March 2013(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Balance sheet at 31 March 2013(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Thenotesonpages9to22formpartofthesefinancialstatements.



Statement of changes in funds for the year ended 31 March 2013(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Balance sheet at 31 March 2013 (continued)(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Note 2013 2012

FUNDS

Accumulated funds $ 325,859,851 $ 311,222,035

Total funds $ 325,859,851 $ 311,222,035

Total funds and liabilities $ 408,871,216 $ 395,477,644

Approvedandauthorisedforissueby

Mr Alan N LaiThe Ombudsman

16May2013

Accumulatedfunds

Balance at 1 April 2011 $ 292,629,840

Change in funds for 2011/2012:

Surplus and total comprehensive income for the year 18,592,195

Balance at 31 March 2012 and 1 April 2012 $ 311,222,035

Change in funds for 2012/2013:

Surplus and total comprehensive income for the year 14,637,816

Balance at 31 March 2013 $ 325,859,851

Thenotesonpages9to22formpartofthesefinancialstatements. Thenotesonpages9to22formpartofthesefinancialstatements.



Cash flow statement for the year ended 31 March 2013 (continued)(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Cash flow statement for the year ended 31 March 2013(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars)

Note 2013 2012

Operating activities

Surplus for the year $ 14,637,816 $ 18,592,195

Adjustments for:

Interest income (6,294,324) (5,615,522)

Depreciation 3,158,273 3,880,453

Amortisation of deferred Government subventions (2,312,382) (2,965,041)

(Gain)/loss on disposal of property, plant

and equipment (4,679) 2,179

Operating surplus before changes in

working capital$ 9,184,704 $ 13,894,264

Increase in deposits and prepayments (1,979,265) (58,515)

Increase in other payables and accruals 70,178 300,040

Increase in contract gratuity payable 997,960 937,594

Net cash generated from operating activities $ 8,273,577 $ 15,073,383

Investing activities

Interest received $ 7,206,530 $ 4,159,376

Payments for purchase of property, plant and equipment (306,426) (1,423,042)

Proceeds from disposal of property, plant and equipment 6,138 -

Increase of time deposits with original maturity over

three months (320,712,000) (305,327,000)

Time deposits with original maturity over three months

matured 305,327,000 289,367,000

Net cash used in investing activities $ (8,478,758) $ (13,223,666)

Note 2013 2012

Net (decrease)/increase in cash and cash

equivalents $ (205,181) $ 1,849,717

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning

of the year 8 9,532,837 7,683,120

Cash and cash equivalents at end

of the year 8 $ 9,327,656 $ 9,532,837

Thenotesonpages9to22formpartofthesefinancialstatements.



Notes to the financial statements(Expressed in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise indicated)

1 Status of The Ombudsman

TheOmbudsmanwasestablishedasacorporationbystatuteon19December2001.ThefunctionsofTheOmbudsmanareprescribedbytheOmbudsmanOrdinance.

Theaddressofitsregisteredofficeis30/F,ChinaMerchantsTower,ShunTakCentre,168-200 ConnaughtRoadCentral,HongKong.

2 Significant accounting policies

(a) Statement of compliance

ThesefinancialstatementshavebeenpreparedinaccordancewithallapplicableHongKongFinancialReportingStandards(“HKFRSs”),whichcollectivetermincludesallapplicableindividualHongKongFinancialReportingStandards,HongKongAccountingStandards(“HKASs”)andInterpretationsissuedbytheHongKongInstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountants(“HKICPA”)andaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedinHongKong.AsummaryofthesignificantaccountingpoliciesadoptedbyTheOmbudsmanissetoutbelow.

TheHKICPAhasissuedseveralamendmentstoHKFRSsthatarefirsteffectiveforthecurrentaccountingperiodofTheOmbudsman.However,noneofthesedevelopmentsarerelevanttoTheOmbudsman’sfinancialstatementsandTheOmbudsman has not applied any new standard or interpretation that is not yet effective for the current accounting period (seenote14).

(b) Basis of preparation of the financial statements

Themeasurementbasisusedinthepreparationofthefinancialstatementsisthehistoricalcostbasis.

ThepreparationoffinancialstatementsinconformitywithHKFRSsrequiresmanagementtomakejudgements,estimatesandassumptionsthataffecttheapplicationofpoliciesandreportedamountsofassets,liabilities,incomeandexpenditure.Theestimatesandassociatedassumptionsarebasedonhistoricalexperienceandvariousotherfactorsthatarebelievedtobereasonableunderthecircumstances,theresultsofwhichformthebasisofmakingthejudgementsaboutcarryingvaluesofassetsandliabilitiesthatarenotreadilyapparentfromothersources.Actualresultsmaydifferfromtheseestimates.

Theestimatesandunderlyingassumptionsarereviewedonanongoingbasis.Revisionstoaccountingestimatesarerecognised in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period, or in the period of the revisionandfutureperiodsiftherevisionaffectsbothcurrentandfutureperiods.

2 Significant accounting policies (continued)

(c) Property, plant and equipment

Property,plantandequipmentarestatedatcostlessaccumulateddepreciationandimpairmentlosses.

Depreciationiscalculatedtowriteoffthecostofitemsofproperty,plantandequipment,lesstheirestimatedresidualvalue, if any, using the straight line method over their estimated useful lives as follows:

–Interestinleaseholdlandheldforownuse Overunexpiredtermof underfinanceleases lease,whichis54years –Building 40years

–Leaseholdimprovements 10years

–Officefurniture 5years

–Officeequipment 5years

–Computerequipment 4years

–Motorvehicles 5years

Boththeusefullifeofanassetanditsresidualvalue,ifany,arereviewedannually.

The carrying amounts of property, plant and equipment are reviewed for indications of impairment at each balance sheet date.Animpairmentlossisrecognisedinthestatementofincomeandexpenditureifthecarryingamountofanasset,orthecash-generatingunittowhichitbelongs,exceedsitsrecoverableamount.Therecoverableamountofanasset,orofthecash-generatingunittowhichitbelongs,isthegreaterofitsfairvaluelesscoststosellandvalueinuse.Inassessingvalueinuse,theestimatedfuturecashflowsarediscountedtotheirpresentvaluesusingapre-taxdiscountratethatreflectscurrentmarketassessmentsofthetimevalueofmoneyandtherisksspecifictotheassets.Animpairmentlossisreversediftherehasbeenafavourablechangeintheestimatesusedtodeterminetherecoverableamount.

Gains or losses arising from the retirement or disposal of an item of property, plant and equipment are determined as the difference between the net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the item and are recognised in the statement of incomeandexpenditureonthedateofretirementordisposal.




(d) Leased assets

Anarrangement,comprisingatransactionoraseriesoftransactions,isorcontainsaleaseifTheOmbudsmandeterminesthat the arrangement conveys a right to use a specific asset or assets for an agreed period of time in return for a payment oraseriesofpayments.Suchadeterminationismadebasedonanevaluationofthesubstanceofthearrangementandisregardlessofwhetherthearrangementtakesthelegalformofalease.

(i) Classification of assets leased to The Ombudsman

AssetsthatareheldbyTheOmbudsmanunderleaseswhichtransfertoTheOmbudsmansubstantiallyalltherisksandrewardsofownershipareclassifiedasbeingheldunderfinanceleases.LeaseswhichdonottransfersubstantiallyalltherisksandrewardsofownershiptoTheOmbudsmanareclassifiedasoperatingleases.

(ii) Assets acquired under finance leases

WhereTheOmbudsmanacquirestheuseofassetsunderfinanceleases,theamountsrepresentingthefairvalueoftheleased asset, or, if lower, the present value of the minimum lease payments, of such assets are included in property, plant andequipmentandthecorrespondingliabilities,netoffinancecharges,arerecordedasobligationsunderfinanceleases.Depreciationisprovidedatrateswhichwriteoffthecostoftheassetsoverthetermoftherelevantleaseor,whereitislikelyTheOmbudsmanwillobtainownershipoftheasset,thelifeoftheasset,assetoutinnote2(c).Impairmentlossesareaccountedforinaccordancewiththeaccountingpolicyassetoutinnote2(c).

(iii) Operating lease charges

WhereTheOmbudsmanhastheuseofotherassetsunderoperatingleases,paymentsmadeundertheleasesarechargedtothestatementofincomeandexpenditureinequalinstalmentsovertheaccountingperiodscoveredbytheleaseterm,exceptwhereanalternativebasisismorerepresentativeofthepatternofbenefitstobederivedfromtheleasedasset.Leaseincentivesreceivedarerecognisedinstatementofincomeandexpenditureasanintegralpartoftheaggregatenetleasepaymentsmade.


(e) Receivables

Receivablesareinitiallyrecognisedatfairvalueandthereafterstatedatamortisedcostusingtheeffectiveinterestmethod,lessallowanceforimpairmentofdoubtfuldebts,exceptwheretheeffectofdiscountingwouldbeimmaterial.Insuchcases,thereceivablesarestatedatcostlessallowanceforimpairmentofdoubtfuldebts.

Impairment losses for bad and doubtful debts are recognised when there is objective evidence of impairment and are measured as the difference between the carrying amount of the financial asset and the estimated future cash flows, discountedattheasset’soriginaleffectiveinterestratewheretheeffectofdiscountingismaterial.Objectiveevidenceofimpairment includes observable data that come to the attention of The Ombudsman about events that have an impact on theasset’sestimatedfuturecashflowssuchassignificantfinancialdifficultyofthedebtor.

Impairment losses for receivables whose recovery is considered doubtful but not remote are recorded using an allowance account.WhenTheOmbudsmanissatisfiedthatrecoveryisremote,theamountconsideredirrecoverableiswrittenoffagainstthereceivabledirectlyandanyamountsheldintheallowanceaccountrelatingtothatdebtarereversed.Subsequentrecoveriesofamountspreviouslychargedtotheallowanceaccountarereversedagainsttheallowanceaccount.Other changes in the allowance account and subsequent recoveries of amounts previously written off directly are recognisedinthestatementofincomeandexpenditure.

(f) Other payables and accruals

Other payables and accruals are initially recognised at fair value and thereafter stated at amortised cost unless the effect of discountingwouldbeimmaterial,inwhichcasetheyarestatedatcost.

(g) Cash and cash equivalents

Cashandcashequivalentscomprisecashatbankandinhand,demanddepositswithbanksandotherfinancialinstitutions,andshort-term,highlyliquidinvestmentsthatarereadilyconvertibleintoknownamountsofcashandwhicharesubjecttoaninsignificantriskofchangesinvalue,havingbeenwithinthreemonthsofmaturityatacquisition.




(h) Employee benefits

Salaries,gratuities,paidannualleave,leavepassageandthecosttoTheOmbudsmanofnon-monetaryemployeebenefitsareaccruedintheyearinwhichtheassociatedservicesarerenderedbyemployeesofTheOmbudsman.Wherepaymentorsettlementisdeferredandtheeffectwouldbematerial,theseamountsarestatedattheirpresentvalues.

ContributionstoMandatoryProvidentFund(“MPF”)asrequiredundertheHongKongMandatoryProvidentFundSchemesOrdinancearerecognisedasanexpenditureinthestatementofincomeandexpenditureasincurred.

(i) Provisions and contingent liabilities

ProvisionsarerecognisedforliabilitiesofuncertaintimingoramountwhenTheOmbudsmanhasalegalorconstructiveobligation arising as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle theobligationandareliableestimatecanbemade.Wherethetimevalueofmoneyismaterial,provisionsarestatedatthepresentvalueoftheexpenditureexpectedtosettletheobligation.

Whereitisnotprobablethatanoutflowofeconomicbenefitswillberequired,ortheamountcannotbeestimatedreliably,theobligationisdisclosedasacontingentliability,unlesstheprobabilityofoutflowofeconomicbenefitsisremote.Possibleobligations,whoseexistencewillonlybeconfirmedbytheoccurrenceornon-occurrenceofoneormorefutureeventsarealsodisclosedascontingentliabilitiesunlesstheprobabilityofoutflowofeconomicbenefitsisremote.

(j) Income recognition

Incomeismeasuredatthefairvalueoftheconsiderationreceivedorreceivable.ProvideditisprobablethattheeconomicbenefitswillflowtoTheOmbudsmanandtheincomeandexpenditure,ifapplicable,canbemeasuredreliably,incomeisrecognisedinthestatementofincomeandexpenditureasfollows:

(i) Government subventions

AnunconditionalGovernmentsubventionisrecognisedasincomeinthestatementofincomeandexpenditurewhenthegrantbecomesreceivable.OtherGovernmentsubventionsarerecognisedinthebalancesheetinitiallywhenthereisreasonable assurance that they will be received and that The Ombudsman will comply with the conditions attaching to them.SubventionsthatcompensateTheOmbudsmanforexpensesincurredarerecognisedasincomeinthestatementofincomeandexpenditureonasystematicbasisinthesameperiodsinwhichtheexpensesareincurred.Subventionsthatcompensate The Ombudsman for the cost of an asset are included in the balance sheet as deferred Government subventionsandrecognisedinthestatementofincomeandexpenditureovertheperiodoftheleasetermorusefulliveoftherelatedassetonabasisconsistentwiththedepreciationpolicyassetoutinnote2(c).


(j) Income recognition (continued)

(ii) Interest income

Interestincomeisrecognisedasitaccruesusingtheeffectiveinterestmethod.

(iii) Other income

Otherincomeisrecognisedonanaccrualbasis.

(k) Related parties

(a) Aperson,oraclosememberofthatperson’sfamily,isrelatedtoTheOmbudsmanifthatperson:

(i) hascontrolorjointcontroloverTheOmbudsman;

(ii) hassignificantinfluenceoverTheOmbudsman;or

(iii) isamemberofthekeymanagementpersonnelofTheOmbudsman.

(b) AnentityisrelatedtoTheOmbudsmanifanyofthefollowingconditionsapplies:

(i) TheentityandTheOmbudsmanaremembersofthesamegroup(whichmeansthateachparent,subsidiaryandfellowsubsidiaryisrelatedtotheothers).

(ii) Oneentityisanassociateorjointventureoftheotherentity(oranassociateorjointventureofamemberofagroupofwhichtheotherentityisamember).

(iii) Bothentitiesarejointventuresofthesamethirdparty.

(iv) Oneentityisajointventureofathirdentityandtheotherentityisanassociateofthethirdentity.

(v) Theentityisapost-employmentbenefitplanforthebenefitofemployeesofeitherTheOmbudsmanoranentityrelatedtoTheOmbudsman.

(vi) Theentityiscontrolledorjointlycontrolledbyapersonidentifiedin(k)(a).

(vii) Apersonidentifiedin(k)(a)(i)hassignificantinfluenceovertheentityorisamemberofthekeymanagementpersonneloftheentity(orofaparentoftheentity).

Closemembersofthefamilyofapersonarethosefamilymemberswhomaybeexpectedtoinfluence,orbeinfluencedby,thatpersonintheirdealingswiththeentity.



3 Government subventions and deferred Government subventions

GovernmentsubventionsrepresentthefundsgrantedbytheGovernmentfordailyoperationsofTheOmbudsman.

DeferredGovernmentsubventionsrepresentthefundsgrantedbytheGovernmentforprepaidleasepayments,thepurchaseofbuildingandcertainleaseholdimprovements.AmortisationofdeferredGovernmentsubventionsisrecognisedonastraightlinebasisovertheperiodoftheleasetermof54yearsofinterestinleaseholdlandheldforownuseunderfinanceleaseforprepaidleasepayments,andtheusefullivesof40yearsand10yearsofbuildingandleaseholdimprovementsrespectivelyinaccordancewiththeaccountingpoliciessetoutinnotes2(c)and (j)(i).

At31March2013,thedeferredGovernmentsubventionsareexpectedtobeamortisedasfollows:

2013 2012

Within one year and included in current liabilities $ 1,814,220 $ 2,312,382

After one year and included in non-current liabilities 69,785,758 71,599,978

$ 71,599,978 $ 73,912,360

4 Operating expenses

2013 2012

Employee benefit expenses (note 5) $ 76,564,593 $ 71,020,138

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment 3,158,273 3,880,453

Rates and management fee 2,511,309 2,289,512

Operating lease rentals in respect of parking spaces 91,200 91,200

Auditor’s remuneration 66,600 60,000

Announcement of public interest expense 6,412,140 3,138,151

Video production expense - 550,000

Other expenses 4,195,680 3,410,271

$ 92,999,795 $ 84,439,725

5 Employee benefit expenses

2013 2012

Salaries and allowances $ 67,110,767 $ 62,456,923

Contract gratuity 6,614,740 6,055,812

Pension costs - MPF scheme 1,489,791 1,244,382

Unutilised annual leave 126,494 144,233

Other employee benefit expenses 1,222,801 1,118,788

$ 76,564,593 $ 71,020,138

6 Key management compensation

2013 2012

Short-term employee benefits $ 12,765,359 $ 12,132,192

Post-employment benefits 1,909,387 1,780,238

$ 14,674,746 $ 13,912,430



7 Property, plant and equipment

Interest inleasehold

land held forown use underfinance leases Building

Leaseholdimprovements

Officefurniture

Officeequipment

Computerequipment

Motorvehicles Total

Cost:

At 1 April 2011 $ 74,900,000 $ 16,800,000 $ 12,770,387 $ 523,923 $ 733,339 $ 2,826,450 $ 179,801 $ 108,733,900

Additions - - 1,143,058 45,784 98,866 135,334 - 1,423,042

Disposals - - - (1,773) (2,920) (16,272) - (20,965)

At 31 March 2012 $ 74,900,000 $ 16,800,000 $ 13,913,445 $ 567,934 $ 829,285 $ 2,945,512 $ 179,801 $ 110,135,977

Accumulated depreciation:

At 1 April 2011 $ 12,669,144 $ 3,802,438 $ 9,975,198 $ 240,422 $ 416,702 $ 2,051,550 $ 68,472 $ 29,223,926

Charge for the year 1,394,220 420,000 1,355,050 107,851 139,193 428,179 35,960 3,880,453

Written back on disposals - - - (1,028) (1,985) (15,773) - (18,786)

At 31 March 2012 $ 14,063,364 $ 4,222,438 $ 11,330,248 $ 347,245 $ 553,910 $ 2,463,956 $ 104,432 $ 33,085,593

Net book value:

At 31 March 2012 $ 60,836,636 $ 12,577,562 $ 2,583,197 $ 220,689 $ 275,375 $ 481,556 $ 75,369 $ 77,050,384

7 Property, plant and equipment (continued)

Interest inleasehold

land held forown use underfinance leases Building

Leaseholdimprovements

Officefurniture

Officeequipment

Computerequipment

Motorvehicles Total

Cost:

At 1 April 2012 $ 74,900,000 $ 16,800,000 $ 13,913,445 $ 567,934 $ 829,285 $ 2,945,512 $ 179,801 $ 110,135,977

Additions - - 65,728 21,055 117,927 101,716 - 306,426

Disposals - - - (660) (59,006) (34,455) - (94,121)

At 31 March 2013 $ 74,900,000 $ 16,800,000 $ 13,979,173 $ 588,329 $ 888,206 $ 3,012,773 $ 179,801 $ 110,348,282

Accumulated depreciation:

At 1 April 2012 $ 14,063,364 $ 4,222,438 $ 11,330,248 $ 347,245 $ 553,910 $ 2,463,956 $ 104,432 $ 33,085,593

Charge for the year 1,394,220 420,000 742,329 110,349 144,368 311,047 35,960 3,158,273

Written back on disposals - - - (528) (58,760) (33,374) - (92,662)

At 31 March 2013 $ 15,457,584 $ 4,642,438 $ 12,072,577 $ 457,066 $ 639,518 $ 2,741,629 $ 140,392 $ 36,151,204

Net book value:

At 31 March 2013 $ 59,442,416 $ 12,157,562 $ 1,906,596 $ 131,263 $ 248,688 $ 271,144 $ 39,409 $ 74,197,078

TheOmbudsman’sinterestinleaseholdlandisheldunderlonglease.



8 Cash and cash equivalents

2013 2012

Cash at bank $ 9,322,656 $ 9,527,837

Cash in hand 5,000 5,000

$ 9,327,656 $ 9,532,837

9 Contract gratuity payable

Theamountrepresentsthegratuitypayabletostaffonexpiryoftheiremploymentcontracts.Theamountofgratuityrangesfrom10%to25%(2012:10%to25%)ofthebasicsalarylessemployer’scontributionstoMPF.

10 Taxation

TheOmbudsmanisexemptedfromtaxationinrespectoftheInlandRevenueOrdinanceinaccordancewithSchedule1ASection5(1)oftheOmbudsmanOrdinance.

11 Commitments

(a) Capitalcommitmentsoutstandingat31March2013notprovidedforinthefinancialstatementswereasfollows:

2013 2012

Contracted for $ 372,243 $ -

(b) At31March2013,thetotalfutureaggregateminimumleasepaymentsundernon-cancellableoperatingleasesinrespectofparkingspacesarepayableasfollows:

2013 2012

Within 1 year $ 7,600 $ 7,600

12 Management of accumulated funds

The Ombudsman’s primary objective when managing its accumulated funds is to safeguard The Ombudsman’s ability to continueasagoingconcern.TheOmbudsmanisnotsubjecttoexternallyimposedrequirementsrelatingtoitsaccumulatedfunds.

13 Financial risk management and fair values

RiskmanagementiscarriedoutbytheaccountingdepartmentunderpoliciesapprovedbyTheOmbudsman.The accountingdepartmentidentifiesandevaluatesfinancialrisksincloseco-operationwiththeoperatingunits.The Ombudsmanprovideswrittenprinciplesforoverallriskmanagementsuchasinterest-raterisk,useoffinancialinstrumentsandinvestingexcessliquidity.

TheOmbudsman’sexposuretocredit,liquidity,interestrateandcurrencyrisksaredescribedbelow:

(a) Credit risk

TheOmbudsman’screditriskisprimarilyattributabletotimedepositsandcashandcashequivalents.Managementhasacreditpolicyinplaceandtheexposuretothiscreditriskismonitoredonanongoingbasis.

Cashisdepositedwithfinancialinstitutionswithsoundcreditratingstominimisecreditexposure.

Themaximumexposuretocreditriskisrepresentedbythecarryingamountofeachfinancialassetinthebalancesheet.TheOmbudsmandoesnotprovideanyguaranteeswhichwouldexposeTheOmbudsmantocreditrisk.

(b) Liquidity risk

TheOmbudsman’spolicyistoregularlymonitoritscurrentandexpectedliquidityrequirementsandtoensurethatitmaintainssufficientreservesofcashtomeetitsliquidityrequirementsintheshortandlongerterm.

The following table shows the remaining contractual maturities at the balance sheet date of The Ombudsman’s financial liabilities, which are based on contractual undiscounted cash flows and the earliest date The Ombudsman can be required to pay:

2013

Contractual undiscounted cash outflow

Within

1 year or

on demand

More than

1 year but

less than

2 years

More than

2 years but

less than

5 years

Total

contractual

undiscounted

cash flows

Carrying

amount

Contract gratuity payable $ (4,640,248) $ (2,338,424) $ (2,278,520) $ (9,257,192) $ (9,257,192)

Other payables and accruals (2,154,195) - - (2,154,195) (2,154,195)

$ (6,794,443) $ (2,338,424) $ (2,278,520) $ (11,411,387) $ (11,411,387)



13 Financial risk management and fair values (continued)

(b) Liquidity risk (continued)

2012

Contractual undiscounted cash outflow

Within

1 year or

on demand

More than

1 year but

less than

2 years

More than

2 years but

less than

5 years

Total

contractual

undiscounted

cash flows

Carrying

amount

Contract gratuity payable $ (4,581,442) $ (3,228,667) $ (449,123) $ (8,259,232) $ (8,259,232)

Other payables and accruals (2,084,017) - - (2,084,017) (2,084,017)

$ (6,665,459) $ (3,228,667) $ (449,123) $ (10,343,249) $ (10,343,249)

(c) Interest rate risk

Interestrateriskistheriskthatthevalueofafinancialinstrumentwillfluctuateduetochangesinmarketinterestrates.TheOmbudsman’sonlyexposuretointerestrateriskisviaitsbankbalanceswhichbearinterestatmarketrates.

Sensitivity analysis

At31March2013,itisestimatedthatageneralincrease/decreaseof100(2012:100)basispointsininterestrates,withallothervariablesheldconstant,wouldhaveincreased/decreasedTheOmbudsman’ssurplusandaccumulatedfundsbyapproximately$3,300,000(2012:$3,149,000).

The sensitivity analysis above has been determined assuming that the change in interest rates had occurred at the balance sheetdateandhadbeenappliedtothefinancialinstrumentswhichexposeTheOmbudsmantointerestrateriskatthatdate.The100basispointsincreaseordecreaserepresentsmanagement’sassessmentofareasonablypossiblechangeininterestratesovertheperioduntilthenextannualbalancesheetdate.Theanalysisisperformedonthesamebasisfor2012.

(d) Currency risk

TheOmbudsmanhasnoexposuretocurrencyriskasallofTheOmbudsman’stransactionsaredenominatedinHongKongdollars.

(e) Fair values

Allfinancialinstrumentsarecarriedatamountsnotmateriallydifferentfromtheirfairvaluesasat31March2013and2012.

14 Possible impact of amendments, new standards and interpretations issued but not yet effective for the year ended 31 March 2013

Uptothedateofissueofthesefinancialstatements,theHKICPAhasissuedanumberofamendmentsandnewstandardswhicharenotyeteffectivefortheyearended31March2013andwhichhavenotbeenadoptedinthesefinancialstatements.

TheOmbudsmanisintheprocessofmakinganassessmentofwhattheimpactoftheseamendmentsisexpectedtobeintheperiodofinitialapplication.SofarithasconcludedthattheadoptionofthemisunlikelytohaveasignificantimpactonTheOmbudsman’sresultsofoperationsandfinancialposition.

TdA–Con

cept,d

esignan

dprod

uctio

nw

ww.tda

.com

.hk

annual report the ombudsman - legcoarrangements” (“maa”) was signed between the director of...

Documents