Ms 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.
Mr. 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.
Ms 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.
Ms 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.
Mr. 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.
Ms 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.
Ms 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.
Ms 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.
Follow @TO_Ombuds