(AAB Appeal No. 9 of 2018)
Daughter suffered injuries in school – excessive collection of personal data by social worker – type of property and if subject to mortgage – denial made by Social Welfare Department – remedial actions taken – section 39(2)(d) – paragraph 8(h) of Complaint Handling Policy – no better result
Coram:
Ms. Elaine LIU Yuk-ling (Presiding Chairman)
Mr. Ronald KWOK Wing-chung (Member)
Miss Rebecca LEE Mo-kit (Member)
Date of Decision : 2 August 2019
The Complaint
The Appellant and her husband (the couple) found her daughter with special educational needs having suffered from injuries and therefore lodged their complaint with the school in which she was studying. Being dissatisfied with the school in handling their complaint, they sought assistance from the Tsing Yi Integrated Family Services Centre (TY Centre) of the Social Welfare Department (SWD).
During the interview at the TY Centre, a social worker Mr. Chan inquired with the couple whether their residence was a privately owned property and if there was any outstanding mortgage. According to the Appellant, Mr. Chan indicated not to handle the couple’s case should they fail to disclose the above information. In the circumstances, the couple had no alternative but to reply that their home was a private owned property free of mortgage.
The Appellant subsequently lodged a complaint with the Commissioner against the SWD on the following two aspects :-
(1) There was excessive collection of her residential data including the type of property and if it was subject to mortgage; and
(2) The social worker Mr. Chan indicated not to handle the couple’s case should they fail to disclose the above information.
The Commissioner's Decision
In the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the SWD claimed that the purpose of obtaining the above residential data from the couple was to have a better understanding of their financial hardship, if any, so as to render appropriate assistance to them. The SWD, however, denied that its social worker Mr. Chan had indicated not to handle the couple’s case should they fail to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner was unable to reach a finding of facts as to whether Mr. Chan did make the alleged statement.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner decided not to proceed with the complaint in light of the following remedial measures taken by the SWD :-
(1) The SWD deleted information about the Appellant’s current residence from her online case file in its computer system, and informed her accordingly. The SWD also passed the relevant screenshots to the Commissioner as evidence proving deletion.
(2) The SWD issued a new memo reminding its employees to observe the requirements of the Ordinance, which included reminding the aided person that provision of information was purely voluntary. The same message was included in the Personal Information Collection Statement (PICS) presented to the aided person upon collection of his personal data. The memo would be circulated to employees at regular intervals and to newly joined employees.
(3) The PICS would be posted at a conspicuous position in the SWD’s office. It would also be presented and explained by the interviewing staff to the aided person.
Dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision, the Appellant lodged an appeal to the AAB.
The Appeal
The AAB affirmed that the Commissioner was entitled to make his decision not to proceed with the Appellant’s complaint under section 39(2)(d) of the Ordinance and paragraph 8(h) of his Complaints Handling Policy, i.e. in view of the remedial actions taken by the SWD, further investigation of the case could not reasonably be expected to bring about a more satisfactory result. In making such ruling, the AAB relied on previous decisions made in AAB 47/2004 and AAB 52/2004. The AAB unanimously ruled that it was not unreasonable or unlawful for the Commissioner to exercise his discretion not to issue an enforcement notice against the SWD in this case.
The AAB was satisfied that the SWD had already deleted data about the Appellant’s current residence after examining the evidence submitted.
The AAB's Decision
The appeal was dismissed.
(Uploaded in March 2020)