The Ombudsman and her staff help people from all neighbourhoods — anyone who has a problem with city government services. Occasionally it takes only a few phone calls and an exchange of correspondence to straighten something out. More often, it takes many calls and various interventions over days and sometimes several weeks to resolve. Below is a sampling of the individual cases that the office has resolved in its first nine months. These cases are published as part of the Ombudsman's first Annual Report for 2009.
A Token ExchangeIn November 2006, the TTC replaced its tokens with a new design. The old tokens were supposed to be good until January 31, 2007. TTC advised people with more than 100 tokens to go to the TTC head office to exchange them.
Ms D had 1,145 tokens. She also had a TTC brochure that said she had until December 31, 2007, to exchange them. She took her tokens to the head office on December 6, 2007. Staff told her the deadline had passed. Ms D wrote to her councillor, and also went to a legal clinic with her complaint. The clinic sent a letter to the Ombudsman on behalf of Ms D, along with a copy of the TTC brochure with the December 31, 2007, deadline.
Ombudsman staff contacted several people at the TTC. A manager there said his office was trying to resolve the complaint. He said the brochure was withdrawn soon after its release, because the deadline was subsequently changed to January 31, 2007. However, the TTC only published this change on its website.
Result: The TTC did agree to honour Ms D’s claim because she had relied on their public information. They exchanged the 1,145 old tokens for new ones.
Getting the Lead OutThe city has a program that replaces the service from the water main up to the homeowner’s property line at no charge if the lead concentration is more than 10 parts per billion. Ms B contacted Toronto Water in December 2007 to have her water tested. She did not qualify for the upgrade. However, city staff left her a voice message saying she would be placed on a list to have her water service upgraded in a year.
In 2009, when Ms B called about her status, she was told there was no record of her call, and that in fact she would not get her water service upgraded. Ms B, who had kept the message, contacted her councillor who referred her to the Ombudsman’s office. When city staff heard Ms B’s 2007 voicemail, they explained that due to the high volume of requests, the city had subsequently changed its policy and no longer did upgrades for homes below the threshold.
Result: Ombudsman staff persuaded the city to replace Ms B’s water pipe in light of its original undertaking. As with Ms D and her TTC tokens, the city has a responsibility to ensure current information about programs and services is routinely communicated to the public.
Systemic Fix to a Nagging ProblemActing on behalf of a number of tenants the Toronto Legal Clinics’ Housing committee complained that the rent calculations of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) have a high error rate, but it is difficult for tenants to figure out because of the lack of information. The complainant advised that they have raised this issue over many years with the TCHC. According to clinic staff, the TCHC had acknowledged the problem, but said nothing could be done until a new computer system that would automatically generate the rent calculation, was in place. The Ombudsman’s office discussed the issue with TCHC, which agreed to implement an interim measure to address the complainant’s concerns.
Result: This system fix will assist thousands of residents in TCHC buildings to better understand their obligations, lessen error rates and/or allow them to be more readily identified.
Mistake in Ticket Almost Leads to Pulled LicenseMr. L received a parking ticket dated December 31, 2007, a day neither he nor his car was in Toronto. He called the city early in 2008 and was told the error would be corrected. In March 2008, he received a notice of conviction, and the parking fine increased from $30 to $46. He called again and was told the error would be corrected.
In 2009, Mr. L went to renew his driver’s license before his March 31 deadline. He was told he had an outstanding fine, now $66, which he had to pay before March 31 or he could not renew his license. He called the city again. Staff agreed to fix the error, but couldn’t commit to doing so before he would lose his license. In mid-March 2009, Mr. L phoned the Ombudsman. Her staff made several calls before finding a staff member who corrected the error by March 31.
Result: Mr. L was able to renew his driver’s license without having to pay the fine he didn’t owe. Finding the right city staff to fix problems can be tough, even for the Ombudsman.
Surprise Fire Hydrant Appears on LawnIn 2009, Ms P arrived home to see a fire hydrant in the middle of her lawn. She contacted the city, wanting to know why she had not been informed ahead of time, and whether the city could move the hydrant to a less prominent position.
City staff told her the new position was marked on a plan that was available to residents in the fall of 2008 at the Public Consultation Office and there had been a public meeting. City policy is to send a notice of such changes and meetings to local residents in an unaddressed letter. They also advised her they couldn’t move the hydrant, unless she was willing to bear the cost – between $5,000 and $10,000. Ms P had not seen any notices and did not know of the 2008 fall public meeting.
Result: After discussing with the Ombudsman and reviewing their own files, the city agreed that the company the city had contracted to do the work had not followed city policy for informing the public.
The hydrant was moved.
Small Mistake, Big EffectMs M is a single mother and full-time student who receives monthly support cheques form the city. The city mistakenly deducted too much money from her benefit cheques. The decline in income had a serious effect. Ms M tried many times to get the city to make the correction. The city did send her a cheque, but Ms M thought she was owed more and asked for an explanation of the figure.
City employees did not explain the discrepancy in a way that made sense to Ms M and declined to give her other options to pursue her complaint. By the time Ms M contacted the Ombudsman’s office she was borrowing money from family to pay her rent.
Ombudsman staff made repeated calls to the city over the ensuing 10 days, to establish if a discrepancy still existed. Finally, staff agreed to check into the matter.
Result: After a more detailed review, the city found Ms M was entitled to additional funds, and they sent her a cheque.
Taking Responsibility for a Shared TreeMr. E has a Norway maple in front of his home, more than half of which is on city property. In the past, the city has pruned the tree under the boundary line street tree policy. In April 2009, a storm broke a limb, which was hanging dangerously. Mr. E phoned the city for assistance and was told the tree was privately owned and therefore his responsibility. Mr. E left a message to speak to a supervisor that Friday morning. He did not hear from the supervisor that day and, not knowing when he would hear back, he hired a contractor to remove the branch.
On Monday, the supervisor called to tell Mr. E that he could request an inspection from the city as the tree was on the property boundary line. When informed Mr. E had taken matters into his own hands, the supervisor refused to reimburse him retroactively for the private contractor.
Ombudsman staff contacted the supervisor who confirmed that the staff member who took Mr. E’s first call gave him incorrect information. The supervisor said she did not have the authority to reimburse him. Mr. E said that if the city had given him the correct information when he first phoned, he would have asked the city to remove the broken branch.
Result: The office fixed the problem by writing to the General Manager who agreed to reimburse Mr. E because he had been given incorrect information.
No ID, No Insulin, No ChequeOne Friday afternoon the Ombudsman’s office received a call from Mr. N. He was in a City of Toronto social services office in a state of crisis. He had been staying with a friend but owed four weeks’ rent. He had no money. He had no ID after losing his wallet. He was diabetic and had not had insulin in two days. The employee had told him he could not get anything without identification.
In this case the Ombudsman had to act fast. Staff told Mr. N to phone his doctor and ask him to fax a note to the city office, confirming he had diabetes. This would let him get insulin. Putting Mr. N on hold, the staff then spoke to the city employee.
Result: In a call back the following Monday, the Ombudsman learned the city staff had given Mr. N money, helped him with an application for a birth certificate and gave him information on how to get his insulin. He would get a cheque for the next month.
Staying on the Housing ListMr. J applied for a rent-geared-to-income apartment in 2000. He was placed on the Housing Connections waiting list. Every year until 2005, when he received a note from Housing Connections, he called to update his status, saying he wanted to remain on the list. He didn’t hear from them in 2006 or 2007. In 2008, he asked about his status. Housing Connections told him he was no longer on the list. He would have to apply again. They could not backdate his application. He would end up at the bottom of the list.
Mr. J came to the Ombudsman for help.
Ombudsman staff contacted Housing Connections. Their staff looked at the electronic records and found they had sent letters to Mr. J every year. He had stopped responding and so was off the list.
After some discussion, Housing Connections finally agreed to search the paper file. They found the 2004 letter was returned, but this had never been noted in the electronic file. If it had, they would have contacted him by phone for his new address. As a result, subsequent letters had been going to his old address.
Result: Housing Connections backdated Mr. J’s application to 2000, restoring him to his place on the waiting list.
Leaving sidewalks accessible in winterMs G uses a wheelchair and does most of her shopping at a centre near her home. In winter, the ploughs have been piling the snow on the slope part of the curb, making it impossible for her to get through. For two years, Ms G has been trying to get someone to come out for a look.
She asked the Ombudsman for help in November. Ombudsman staff phoned the manager of road operations, who said he would go out to see for himself. On November 30, he went to see Ms G, going with her to see the exact route she takes to the shopping centre.
Result: The city staffer said he would make sure it was ploughed properly, so that her wheelchair could get through, and he gave her his direct phone number to call if there is a problem.
Ms G was happy when she phoned the Ombudsman office to report on the progress. She had a few more things she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate, but staff reminded Ms G she had to first try to sort out the problems herself, as the Ombudsman’s office is a last resort.
Death and taxesMs F’s mother died in September 2009, a month after she had paid for her car license sticker for two years. In Toronto, the sticker price includes $60 in a personal vehicle tax that goes to the city.
Ms F thought that, since her mother had died, she should be able to get a refund. When she called to inquire, city staff told her no. That didn’t seem fair to Ms F who talked with the Ombudsman at a community meeting.
Ombudsman staff called a city manager and explained the situation.
Result: The manager agreed that, in this case, it was possible to issue a refund and asked Ms F to send the current vehicle ownership and the receipt.
This case raises a larger issue. There is no provision in the City of Toronto Act for paying refunds. The Ombudsman is working with the public service to see if the provincial law can be amended or if there are other ways to fix this obvious unfairness.
Encouraging Civic ImprovementMr. O owns a home on a corner lot. He planted flowers and a hedge on the corner, on city property. He did it to make the area more attractive for everyone. Unfortunately, city trucks sometimes drove over the curb, damaging the flowers and hedge, which he replanted. Mr. O spoke to city staff who respected his intent and tried to fix the problem by setting up signs. This solution was not entirely successful. Mr. O approached the Ombudsman’s office, who called the city.
Result: The city has agreed to install some bollards which will physically prevent vehicles from riding over the curb.
Too much waterMs C did not receive her water bill for July–November 2007. She made a payment of $600, based on her consumption history. She called the city in December 2007. Staff told her the meter had been read in November and that the reading was unusually high, suggesting a leak or something wrong with the meter. Ms. C found a leak and fixed it.
In April 2008, she received a bill for more than $5,000. She paid $2,000 in 2008. She wrote the city in January 2009, asking that the remaining amount be written off or halved and she would make five equal payments to pay it off. She did not receive a response.
Ms C wrote to the Ombudsman. Ombudsman staff made several calls. At first, city staff said they did not have a copy of Ms C’s letter. They found it eventually and a supervisor reviewed the matter. It turned out they had not sent a bill for July—November 2007. They conceded that if they had, Ms C might have been able to fix the problem earlier.
Result: The city agreed to reduce the complainant’s bill by $2,233.
Parking permit woesMs A owns a home in a town north of Toronto and a condo in Toronto. She stays in the Toronto apartment whenever she does business in town. The condo does not include parking. Since she bought it in 2005, she has had a permit for overnight parking on the street.
In 2009, she bought a new car and notified the city of the change in the license number when she tried to renew the parking permit. The city told her to change her ownership and driver’s license to her Toronto address.
She did try to change the address on her driver’s license, but the staff at the province’s registration office advised against it as this would trigger other changes. She would not be able to use her driver’s license as her main piece of identification.
Ms A reported this to the city. City staff continued to refuse her a parking permit. They did give her a card to obtain an online permit to park on the street for $18 every time she comes to Toronto.
Result: A supervisor in Transportation Services told ombudsman staff that Ms A should take her proof of Toronto residency (property tax and utility bills) to any of the three city locations and they would renew her permit. He asked that Ms A let him know which office she was going to visit so that he could e-mail them to let them know she was coming in. Ms A finally got her parking permit.
Parking from afarMr. T was visiting Toronto from abroad. He parked his rented car on a street. The signs said parking was allowed, but when he returned there was a ticket. Mr. T paid the ticket but also took photos of the sign. When he got home, he tried calling Parking Tags but could not reach anyone. He wanted to be reimbursed.
Mr. T corresponded with the Ombudsman and included photos of the situation. Ombudsman staff called Parking Tags, explained the situation and provided the photos.
Result: Parking Tags agreed that Mr. T had not violated parking regulations and asked for Mr. T’s credit card number so they could reimburse him.
Helping out the city budgetMs Q is a property manager. She noticed she had not received a bill for the removal of solid waste from the apartment building for almost a year. She made several calls and also wrote to the city but received no reply.
She contacted the Ombudsman staff who called the billing department. They had no idea the property was not being billed, thanked the Ombudsman’s office for phoning and promised to send an invoice for the whole year.
Result: Ombudsman staff called Ms Q to ask if she was comfortable with a bill for the whole year. Ms Q replied that it would help them plan their budget for the next year. It also helped the city. DELETE?
Getting the right binMs R paid for an extra-large garbage bin more than a year ago but did not receive it, although she did get her blue bin. She placed many phone calls to the city and was finally told the grey bins were on back order and she would not get one for another three months. She asked for more yellow tags to put on her garbage bags so they would be picked up without her having to pay. Staff told her no more tags were being issued and she would have to pay to have her garbage picked up. And, it would be at least three months before someone could come out to verify that she did not have an extra-large garbage bin.
Ombudsman staff called the bin program. Staff there confirmed Ms R had called many times. They promised someone would go to Ms R’s house the following week.
Result: Ms R called the Ombudsman office two days later to report she had her extra-large bin. Also, she reported that the city had noticed, while they were looking at her file, that she had been paying for water for an empty lot sitting next to hers. They credited her for the extra payment.
When form letters don’t workMs K has rented from the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) for many years. In July 2009, she received two letters from TCHC. Each told her the rent was going up but gave her different amounts. Each had a standard paragraph that said her rent was geared to her income, which was not correct. She was paying a market-based rent. It was confusing.
Ms K sought help for a legal clinic in disputing the rent increase. The amount of rent was settled. However, Ms K still wanted one letter from TCHC that clearly spelled out the amount of rent she was paying and not saying that she was paying rent geared-to-income. Her many attempts to get the letter were unsuccessful.
Ombudsman staff contacted a TCHC manager, who reviewed the letters. One had come from the local office and another from the corporate office. There was no explanation for the differing amounts. The manager agreed that the standard paragraph about rent geared to income did not apply to Ms K.
Result: The TCHC agreed to send Ms K a letter with the correct information and a clear explanation.
