On This Page

How we help agencies

We support good decision making and administration by Western Australian government departments and authorities, and local governments. For simplicity, we refer to all these public authorities as “agencies”.

We do this by:

  • Providing guidelines and resources on good decision making and effective complaint handling
  • Workshops and information sessions
  • Providing information on request
  • Providing practical suggestions for improvement through individual complaint investigations

Responding to complaints made to the Ombudsman

We nearly always ask people to go through an agency’s complaint process before we become involved.

When we contact your agency about a complaint:

  • We may ask whether the person has made a complaint, whether you are still considering the complaint, and what the outcome was, or
  • We may refer a matter to you (with the person’s consent) for you to look into. We would sometimes do this for vulnerable people to avoid them having to tell their story over again. We will follow up with you to check the outcome, or
  • We may start an investigation.

Agencies should respond promptly to our enquiries and focus on a practical outcome to the complaint. This will provide better customer service for the complainant and reduce the resource impact of our investigation.

When we investigate

  • We speak with someone with authority to look into the matter. This might be a centralised complaint team or liaison officer, or a manager in the location at which your services were delivered.
  • We use an informal process first and ask the agency to comment on the complaint and provide background information.
  • We explore options for early resolution.
  • If unresolved, we will do further investigation. We can request any records held by an agency and interview staff.
  • We are fair and impartial. We hear the story from both sides and give you reasonable time to respond.
  • If it looks like there was an administrative error, poor service or unfairness in the circumstances, we may suggest that the agency provide a remedy to the person and/or undertake improvements to administration. We look for ways to have the issue resolved throughout our investigation. If resolved, we stop our investigation.
  • If we make a finding at the end of an investigation, we will put our view to the agency (a “preliminary view”) for comment.
  • After considering any comments, we will form a final view and may make recommendations to the head of the agency (CEO or Director General) and may report this to the Minister responsible.

We follow up on recommendations made to ensure they are implemented. If no adequate steps have been taken to implement the recommendation, the Ombudsman may report to the Premier and to Parliament.

Remedies and Improvements

Remedies for the person are intended to put the person in the position they would have been in if the error had not occurred, or give other relief if that is not possible.

Improvements to public administration may not help the complainant directly but help ensure the same problems don’t happen again. This improves an agency’s customer services for everyone.

Examples of remedies for complainants and improvements to public administration include:

Remedies examples Administrative improvement examples
Explanation – sometimes the person just needs to better understand an agency’s decision or process Change policy or procedure – sometimes policy or procedure is unclear, doesn’t meet legislative requirements, or has unintended consequences.
Apology and acknowledgement – when something went wrong or someone is adversely affected, acknowledge the error and apologise. An apology is not an admission of liability. Staff training – sometimes policy or procedure is not being followed or customer service needs improving, and this can require staff training or individual counselling.
Expedited decision – looking at a matter more quickly might be appropriate in some cases. Change or correction to a business system – if a system error or system capability caused the problem, provide a solution to avoid it recurring.
Reconsider a decision – perhaps the process was flawed or new information has come to light. The agency could get the decision maker to re-do the decision making process. This doesn’t necessarily mean a different outcome, although a different outcome could be the result. Conduct an audit/review or get professional or legal advice – if more investigation is needed, engage experts to look at the issue in more detail.
Financial remedy – refund of an overpayment or correcting an incorrect bill should be processed without delay once identified. In some cases, providing compensation, waiving a charge, or making a ‘good will’ payment may be appropriate. Improve recordkeeping – a decision without good records can be harder to justify. Good records avoid “they said, they said” situations.
Repair, replace or rectify – for example if property is damaged or lost, it could be replaced by the agency. Update to publications/websites – sometimes public information can be improved to avoid ambiguity or provide more detail.