Hi Everyone,
Until very recently, there were no significant updates to provide on our matter.
In January, I made a request for my personal information to be provided by the RSPCA. The request was made under Privacy Principle 12 of the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988. Documents containing my personal information were provided by the RSPCA's Privacy Officer, however they were heavily redacted and therefore nothing of significance was obtained from that request.
More recently, the Queensland Ombudsman returned with a decision on our matter. Please see below response and excuse the formatting. Ultimately, the QO do not believe the DES have acted unreasonably in our matter and will not be taking further action. It is my personal belief that there is a massive failing here. The 10,000+ people who have signed this petition would most likely agree, therefore it makes no sense to me how the Ombudsman finds no fault or issue with the actions of either the DES or RSPCA.
I have come across at least two other instances recently where the DES have seized birds (or owners have been forced to surrender them) or are considering such action.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Josh
Dear Mr Cohen
I refer to your complaint about the actions of the Department of Environment and Science (DES) and RSPCA (Qld) in dealing with protected wildlife (an eclectus parrot)
prescribed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) which you surrendered to DES on 18 November 2020.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the outcome of my consideration of your complaint.
Decision
For the reasons discussed below, as a delegate of the Ombudsman, I have discontinued
the investigation of your complaint:
• under section 23(1 )(D of the Ombudsman Act 2001 for Issues 1-7 described below
on the basis that, in my view, neither DES nor RSPCA has acted contrary to law or
unreasonably in their respective dealings with the protected wildlife (bird) in the
circumstances of this case
• under s.23(1)(d) of Ombudsman Act for the human rights aspect of your complaint
(Issue 8) on the basis that it is premature for this Office to consider as this issue has
not been raised with DES.
My reasons for decision are set out later in this letter.
Your complaint
I am mindful of the circumstances in which you acquired the bird, its surrender to DES,
its transfer to RSPCA for re-homing under an agreement between the two entities and
the actions of RSPCA in deciding to place the bird with a third party under its re-homing
program.
I identified the following issues from your complaint for consideration:
1. exercise of discretion – failure of DES to consider alternative lawful approaches to
surrender of the bird – your sole intention was to take the bird, after its rehabilitation,
to a reputable bird sanctuary (in Maleny) for its own well-being.
2
2. failure of DES to observe procedural fairness – you should have been afforded a
right to be heard and had your submission duly considered before any decision was
made by DES that the bird must be surrendered
3. failure of DES to comply with certain principles prescribed in the Public Sector Ethics
Act 1994 (Ethics Act) – you were not provided with any advice as to which statutory
provisions were being relied upon by DES to enforce surrender.
4. failure of DES to comply with its Enforcement Guidelines in dealing with the offence
under NC Act regarding your unlawful acquisition and movement of the bird to your
place of residence
5. failure of DES to observe its Procedural guide - Wildlife management - Placement
program with the RSPCA Qld (DES wildlife placement guidelines) in that DES was
directly involved by not approving the rehoming of the bird by RSPCA to the Maleny
bird sanctuary (which was your preferred outcome)
6
7.
whether, in terms of the DES wildlife placement guidelines, you or the Maleny bird
sanctuary were eligible to apply to adopt the bird following its surrender to DES
conflict of interest – whether RSPCA is unduly influenced by the DES wildlife
placement guidelines in re-homing of protected wildlife in that the guidelines prevent
RSPCA from acting in, what it considers to be, the best interests of an animal in
deciding the person to whom it is to be re-homed
8. failure of DES and RSPCA to consider the impact of their respective decisions in this
matter on your human rights, as required under the Human Rights Act 2019 (HR
Act)
The outcomes being sought from your complaint to this Office are:
• re-home the bird to a suitable bird or animal sanctuary (with a large bird enclosure)
• a full and proper investigation into DES practices concerning the surrender and
seizure of animals under NC Act.
Assessment of your complaint
I have considered all of your complaint material, and obtained relevant information and
documents from DES, in reaching my decision on your complaint.
While I may not refer to all the evidence or arguments raised in your submissions, be
assured that I have carefully considered all the information you provided.
DES is an agency for the purposes of s.8(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act, while RSPCA is
not an entity within the jurisdiction of the Act.
However, this Office has received legal opinion that the actions of RSPCA in disposing of
protected wildlife under the DES wildlife placement guidelines are deemed to be
administrative actions of DES in terms of s.10(c) of the Ombudsman Act. I have therefore
proceeded with the investigation of your complaint on that basis and made appropriate
enquires of DES regarding the actions of RSPCA in disposing of the bird to a third party
under the guidelines and relevant RSPCA policy and procedure.
I have not contacted RSPCA during the investigation of your complaint as no meaningful
outcome is likely to be achieved by doing so, given the bird has been re-homed to a third
party and there is no prospect of a reversal of that decision through this Office.
3
The role of the Ombudsman, in terms of its complaint jurisdiction under the Ombudsman
Act, is as a review body to consider each complaint and form a view whether the
administrative action/s of the relevant agency in the matter of complaint satisfy one or
more of the provisions in s.49(2) of the Act – that is, whether maladministration has
occurred
The Ombudsman’s powers are set out in the Ombudsman Act and are recommendatory
in nature, rather than directive or determinative. The result is that the Ombudsman.
unlike a court or semi-judicial tribunal, cannot direct an agency to take particular action.
Recommendations to take particular action might be made where there is a basis for
doing so, such as its actions and decision-making being unreasonable or that it has
acted contrary to its statutory power or the proper application of a policy or guideline.
Accordingly, the focus on any investigation of your complaint by this Office will be on the
reasonableness or otherwise of the position of DES as set out in its letter of 7 January
2021 and other relevant documents.
The threshold to determine when an action constitutes maladministration within the
meaning of s.49 of the Ombudsman Act is relatively high. It would not, for example, be
satisfied where there is a difference of opinion about the appropriate outcome in a
particular case. Where a decision is made in accordance with relevant laws, policies and
procedures, it is less likely that it will properly be considered to amount to
maladministration.
In terms of s.25 of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman (or his delegate – in this case,
me) may determine the nature and scope of an investigation and the extent to which the
investigation is undertaken. I have made the necessary determination for your complaint
having regard to all relevant factors.
Reasons for decision
Issue 1 - exercise of discretion re alternative lawful approaches to surrender of bird
You have referred to information on DES website which states there are three levels of
documentation under NC Act under which wildlife may be moved:
1
2
3.
wildlife movement permit
movement advice
chief executive’s written approval
You say you were not advised or made aware of the last, discretionary option prior to
being forced to surrender the bird to DES.
I note from your complaint material that you are the holder of a recreational wildlife
licence issued under NC Act, but did not have any of the other permits (3) listed on the
DES website when you acquired and moved the bird to your home address.
In terms of s.16 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006, the
holder of a wildlife authority may only keep, use or move wildlife under the authority if the
wildlife was lawfully obtained by the person.
My understanding is that the terms of your recreational wildlife licence precluded your
acquisition or movement of the bird in question without a movement advice and/or permit
issued under NC Act.
You acquired and moved the bird in December 2019 without any prior statutory authority
to do so. You did not contact DES about a movement permit until October 2020 (to move
the bird to Maleny bird sanctuary). You were informed by DES that you were unlawfully
4
in possession of the bird and it would have to be surrendered to DES. You have
described the ('coercive’) circumstances in your complaint material under which the bird
was surrendered to DES on 18 November 2020. DES outlined in its letter of 7 January
2021 to you the reasons for its requirement that the bird be surrendered, and the
possible consequences of non-compliance.
For completeness, the surrender document is clear as to the implications of surrender:
the person forfeits any right or claim to the animal. I will address matters relating to
adoption of the bird through the RSPCA re-homing program under Issue 6.
Given the circumstances of the matter, there was, in my view, no imperative for DES to
issue the requisite authority after the event to validate your unlawful acquisition and
movement of the bird and exercise the discretion being sought.
In my view, the actions of DES in this matter are not irrational, lacking in reason or
unjustifiable having regard to the relevant legal framework, the responsibilities for holding
the requisite licence for wildlife and, from the material on DES website, the obligations on
a person for the movement of protected wildlife are clear,
I consider that in the circumstances of this case, DES has not acted contrary to law or
unreasonably, etc in requiring the bird to be surrendered. There was no obligation on
DES to validate your unlawful acquisition and movement of the bird some 10 months
after the event by invoking an available mechanism under the NC Act (if one was
available) for this purpose or to provide advice to you about the availability of alternatives
(if any) to surrender.
I consider that further investigation of this issue is unnecessary or unjustifiable.
Issue 2 - failure to observe procedural fairness
Your position is that you should have been given a right to be heard and had your
submission duly considered before any decision was made by DES requiring surrender
of the bird.
In my view, there was no requirement for DES to afford you with the opportunity to make
a submission as to whether you should be required to surrender the bird. DES was
dealing with the offence of your unlawful possession of protected wildlife with a view to
'stopping the offence'. The circumstances surrounding your unlawful acquisition and
movement of the bird negates any right to procedural fairness relating to the surrender.
DES, its letter dated 7 January 2021, explained the formal enforcement options available
to it if the bird were not surrendered.
You have been afforded procedural fairness by DES in the consideration of your
complaint to DES about its overall process in the matter. DES, by virtue of the contents
of its letter of 7 January 2021, has considered your submissions and concluded that its
officers did not act unlawfully or unreasonably in requiring surrender of the bird and
accepting its surrender. DES then has an obligation only to discharge its internal
complaints management system requirements, which it has done so through that letter.
Given the circumstances of the case, I consider DES did not act contrary to law or
unreasonably, etc in not affording you the opportunity to make the submission in
question. There was no failure by DES to observe procedural fairness regarding your
surrender of the bird because, in my view, there was no requirement for DES to do so at
that time
5
Issue 3 – compliance with Ethics Act
You have contended that DES did not comply with certain principles in the Ethics Act
leading up to your surrender of the bird, namely a) integrity and impartiality; and b)
accountability and transparency.
In this regard, you have mentioned, among other matters, the inability of DES officers to
inform you as to the specific legislation under which the bird could be seized and the
assurance given that you could apply to adopt the bird through the RSPCA re-homing
program
In my view, any deficiency in the provision of information as to the applicable legislative
provisions at the surrender stage is sufficiently overcome in the response of DES dated
7 January 2021 which contained the relevant legislative references relating to the
requirement that the bird be surrendered to DES as the regulator for the management of
protected wildlife.
DES has advised that its letter incorrectly referenced s.16 of the Nature Conservation
(Administration) Regulation 2006, whereas it should have referenced s.16 of the Nature
Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. DES further advised that it has
since provided follow-up advice to you which both clarified and provided copies of the
legislationa nd regulationsre levant o this matter,
On the matter of an assurance given to you about your entitlement to apply for adoption
of the bird. I am advised that such information was not incorrect. You were entitled to
lodge an application with RSPCA for adoption. I understand your application was
received and considered, but you were not successful. I will address matters relating to
adoption of the bird through the RSPCA re-homing program in greater detail under Issue
6
In my view, there is insufficient evidence in your complaint to indicate that DES failed to
observe the relevant principles in the Ethics Act in relation tot the subject matter of your
complaint. Accordingly, I consider that further investigation of this issue is unjustifiable.
Issue 4 – DES compliance with its enforcement guidelines
You have referred to the DES Enforcement Guidelines and stated that, in order to be
considered a major or even serious contravention, DES would have to prove certain
matters beyond reasonable doubt.
The DES letter of 7 January 2021 does not appear to make any reference to the
seriousness of your contravention of NC Act in this case, only that an offence had
occurred by acquiring and moving the bird without the necessary permits required under
the Act
The DES letter included the following statement:
these actions are offences under the Nature Conservation (Administration) Regulation
2017 for which penalty infringement notices or prosecution could have been taken. Due to
the particular circumstances of this matter and Ms S’s cooperation in surrendering
the bird, the department determined not to take any further action in accordance with its
Enforcement Guidelines. However, on the basis that Ms S acquired the Eclectus
Parrot unlawfully, she was not entitled to keep the bird or to have it 'transferred’ to any other
person or entity. It was therefore necessary for the bird to be surrendered to the department
so that it could be lawfully rehomed by the RSPCA Qld through the existing South East
Queensland Recreational Wildlife Re-homing Program.
6
Section 1.3 of the Enforcement Guidelines outlines the DES procedure for the
assessment of any contravention of legislation administered by the department, to
determine the enforcement measures appropriate in a particular case:
The department will assess all notifications it receives of possible contraventions of its
legislation, and based on these assessments and any associated investigations, will make
decisions as to the appropriate response. In some cases, the decision may be to take no
action, for example, if an investigation reveals that no contravention of the legislation has
occurred. In some cases, the department may provide advice, guidance, or assistance to
help a person comply with the legislation. In other cases, it may be necessary for the
department to take enforcement action in response to a contravention of the legislation
The document also contains the range of enforcement measures available to DES in the
event of a contravention, including warnings and prosecution. It is likely that an offence
would be prosecuted through the courts only for a serious contravention or where other
measures have been unsuccessful or considered inappropriate in a particular case.
As the bird was surrendered (perhaps involuntarily) in this instance, DES did not take any formal enforcement action under the guidelines, even though such steps were available as mentioned in the letter of 7 January 2021.
The DES letter clearly indicates if the bird had not been surrendered, other enforcement options were available to DES, which have been avoided by the surrender action. There is, in my view, nothing unreasonable in DES taking this approach under its enforcement
guidelines. I consider that further investigation of this issue is unnecessary or unjustifiable.
Issue 5 – DES wildlife placement guidelines
You have referred to conflicting information provided to you by both DES and RSPCA
regarding the extent of involvement by DES in the RSPCA decision to re-home the bird
with a third party.
The DES wildlife placement guidelines, among other matters:
• provide guidance to both DES and RSPCA staff about the placement of nonreleasable
animals with RSPCA for re-homing
outline the circumstances when DES will transfer an animal to RSPCA for re-homing set out, in general terms, how RSPCA will deal with the animal and decide on a 'suitable person’ with whom the animal can be placed
contain a process for resolving disagreements between RSPCA and DES on the disposal of an animal in a particular case
In terms of the guidelines, the decision as to who is a 'suitable person' in each case is a matter for RSPCA having regard to the criteria in the guidelines. DES, in its letter of 7 January 2021, stated:
With regards to the process of rehoming the surrendered parrot through the South East
Queensland Recreational Wildlife Re-homing Program, the department, for probity purposes,
adopts a hand-off approach in the actual placement process for surrendered or seized
wildlife. As such, the process of assessing and deciding Expressions of Interest is managed
entirely by the RSPCA (IId and seeks to ensure the best possible outcome for the wildlife
taking into account the individual circumstances of both the animals and the persons
submitting Expressions of Interest.
You have provided an email from RSPCA which includes the following statement:
7
Annie the Parrot came into our care via the Department of Environment and Science (DES)
rehoming program after she was surrendered by you to DES. You requested that the bird be
rehomed to Maleny Bird Sanctuary, however DES did not approve the rehoming of Annie to
the Maleny Bird Sanctuary and given the bird came in via the DES rehoming program we
were required to comply with the law and with the requirements of DES.
As a result we were therefore unable to follow through with your request to rehome to Maleny
Bird Sanctuary.
It is unclear from the foregoing statement whether the RSPCA interpretation of the DES
position applies specifically to Annie or has application to animal sanctuaries generally.
In response to my enquiries of DES regarding its extent of involvement in RSPCA rehoming
decisions, DES advised as follows:
Neither the QPWS Procedural Guide – Wildlife Management – Placement program with the
RSPCA CIId nor the RSPCA Policy A04 Adoption of RSPCA animals specifically restrict
either a person who surrenders particular wildlife to DES from participating in the expression
of interest process to adopt the animal, or being approved to adopt the animal nor does it
impose any restriction that would have prevented the bird from being re-homed to the Maleny
Botanic Gardens and Bird World. The procedural guide only requires that RSPCA Qld place
the animal in accordance with the guidelines set out by the RSPCA including the requirement
that it be placed with a suitable person as defined in the procedural guide. The RSPCA policy
(A04) prescribes 5 broad principles to be followed in relation to the RSPCA animal adoption
program. In communications from both DES and RSPCA to Mr Cohen he was advised that
both he and the Maleny Botanic Gardens and Bird World were able to submit applications
under the RSPCA Adopt-a-Pet program to adopt the Eclectus Parrot known as “Annie”
The process for assessing and determining the outcome from EOls submitted under the
RSPCA Adopt-a-Pet rests entirely with the RSPCA giving consideration to the criteria listed
in their guidelines and any other matters they consider are relevant. Whilst DES provides
RSPCA with background information in relation to any protected wildlife which are provided
to RSPCA as part of the South East Queensland Recreational Wildlife Re-homing Program,
the department does not impose any restrictions on the RSPCA beyond the requirement that
animals are placed with a suitable person as defined in the DES procedural guide and does
not participate in the decision-making process. The decision to reject the EOls submitted by
Mr Cohen and by the Maleny Botanic Gardens and Bird World in favour of other applications
was made by the RSPCA .. .
While I acknowledge that the advice you received from both DES and RSPCA may be in
conflict regarding the latter’s re-homing decision for the bird, I am unable to conclude
from the information available to me that DES had any direct involvement in, or gave any
directions to, RSPCA about the manner in which its re-homing decision for the bird
should be exercised. From DES perspective, RSPCA was required only to have regard
to DES guidelines about the selection of a 'suitable person’. After observing this DES
requirement (which seems to have occurred in this instance), RSPCA is free to apply its
own policies when making decisions about the re-homing of protected wildlife transferred
from DES
Given the bird has been re-homed by RSPCA to a third party, and this Office is unable to
change the RSPCA decision and re-home the bird in the manner sought by you, I consider that further investigation of this issue is unnecessary or unjustifiable as no meaningful outcome is likely to be achieved through further investigation.
On the matter of the conflict resolution process referred to in the DES wildlife placement guidelines, DES has advised:
There are no detailed conflict resolution arrangements documented for the DES-RSPCA agreement and to date such arrangements have not been required over the 5+ years that the agreement has been place ... To date the department has not sought to or found it necessary to intervene in any of the decision-making by RSPCA in relation to animal
placements and has maintained "arms-length” in this process .. .
Issue 6 – your eligibility to participate in bird adoption process
I mentioned under Issue 5 that the DES wildlife placement guidelines do not specifically
restrict either a person who surrenders particular wildlife to DES from participating in the
RSPCA expression of interest process to adopt the animal, or being approved to adopt
the animal. Furthermore, the guidelines do not impose any restriction that would have
prevented the bird from being re-homed to the Maleny bird sanctuary. As previously
mentioned, the guidelines require only that RSPCA place the bird with a 'suitable
person
The surrender document signed by Ms S on 18 November 2020 is clear as to the
implications of surrender: the person forfeits any right or future claim to the animal.
However, I understand both you and the Maleny bird sanctuary were advised by RSPCA
of eligibility to apply (separately) to RSPCA to adopt the bird under its adoption program.
You state similar advice was provided by DES at the time of surrender of the bird. I
further understand expressions of interest were duly submitted for the bird, but both were
unsuccessful. RSPCA informed you as to the reason your application for adoption was
not successful.
RSPCA decided to select another suitable person for re-homing of the bird. In my view, it
does not necessarily follow that neither you nor Maleny bird sanctuary were a 'suitable
person’ in this instance. On its face, it appears that RSPCA considered the person to
whom the bird was re-homed to be a more suitable person in this case.
DES says it had no involvement in the selection process, given its hands-off approach in
matters of this nature (see discussion under Issue 5).
In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, it is not justifiable to further
investigate this issue.
Issue 7 – conflict of interest
You have expressed the belief that RSPCA is unduly influenced by the DES wildlife
placement guidelines in re-homing of protected wildlife in that the guidelines prevent
RSPCA from acting in, what it considers to be, the best interests of an animal in deciding
the person to whom it is to be re-homed because it might impact on future DES decisions
regarding the placement of animals with RSPCA.
I consider that I have adequately dealt with the interface between the DES wildlife
placement guidelines and the RSPCA adoption program in my discussion on the above
issues
In short, I am of the view that the DES guidelines, of themselves, do not unduly influence
RSPCA from acting in, what it considers to be, the best interests of an animal in deciding
the person to whom it is to be re-homed under the RSPCA adoption program.
The DES guidelines require only that an animal transferred to RSPCA under the
agreement referred to in the guidelines be placed with a suitable person. The decision as
to who is a suitable person is solely a matter for RSPCA in each case having regard to
the broad criteria prescribed in the guidelines. As previously mentioned, DES says it has
no involvement in the selection process, given its hands-off approach in matters of this
nature (see discussion under Issue 5).
9
From the information available to this Office, there is no reasonable basis, in my view, to
conclude that any conflict of interest exists in decisions made by RSPCA in this process
or that DES exercises any undue influence over such decisions by RSPCA.
Further investigation of this aspect of your complaint is unjustifiable.
Issue 8 – impact on human rights
You have asserted that the actions taken by DES and RSPCA in this matter, as generally
described above, were not 'compatible with human rights, nor were they reasonable or
demonstrably justifiable. They were not fair and balanced, nor could it be argued that the
potential benefit(s) associated with the decision outweighed the harm caused, not only to
my wife and I, but to Annie (the bird)’. Accordingly, neither entity (to the extent RSPCA is
performing a function of a public nature for DES in the disposal of protected wildlife) has
complied with its obligation under s.58 of HR Act.
You have particularly referred to s.17 of HR Act which states, in part, that a person must
not be treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. In this regard, you assert:
In our case, the cruel and inhuman treatment was in the fact that our distress was completely
disregarded by the DES. We believe the 'human factor' was entirely absent from the way in
which our matter was handled by the DES and RSPCA
I note from your complaint material that you made a complaint about the alleged
contravention of HR Act to the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC); but
subsequently withdrew it in favour of having this aspect considered by this Office in
conjunction with your substantive complaint about the overall actions of DES and
RSPCA in relation to the bird in question.
I also note that the DES response of 7 January 2021 does not specifically address the
question as to whether your human rights have been considered by DES in its actions
and decisions concerning the bird as required by s.58 of HR Act. However, the following
statement is included in the DES letter:
Whilst acknowledging your ongoing personal concerns with regards to your treatment by the
department in relation to this matter, my review of departmental records and correspondence
indicates that departmental staff have acted professionally and at all times treated both
yourself and Ms S with respect and compassion when responding to your numerous
queries and emails. I find no basis to support the assertion that either you or Ms S have been treated unfairly or were subject to inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour by departmental officers.
This Office assesses a complaint about a contravention of HR Act by a public entity in the same manner as any other complaint, namely that the complaint (issue) must first be raised with the relevant agency and its response obtained. This Office, as a review body, is unable to consider whether an agency has acted contrary to law or unreasonably, etc
without the benefit of knowing its position in response to the complaint.
On the information available to me, it appears that you have not specifically raised your HR Act concerns directly with DES and obtained its response. On this basis, I am discontinuing the investigation of this aspect of your complaint under s.23(1)(d) of the Ombudsman Act because you have a right of review to DES in the
matter which you have not exhausted and, in my view, it would be reasonable in the circumstances to require that you exhaust such right before the complaint is further considered by this Office.
As an alternative, it is open to you to re-submit your complaint to QHRC.
I have considered your human rights in making my decision on your complaint, as required by s.58 of HR Act. I have concluded that my decision is compatible with human rights
Summary
After investigating your complaint to the extent I considered appropriate in this case, I have effectively concluded that, in respect of Issues 1-7 above, neither DES nor RSPCA has acted in a manner prescribed in s.49(2) of the Ombudsman Act.
Accordingly, I am unable to be of further assistance regarding the achievement of the outcomes being sought from your complaint to this Office, as described in Page 2 of this letter
In particular, as no maladministration has been identified through my investigation, there is no reasonable basis for this Office to recommend to DES that it review its policies and procedures surrounding the surrender and seizure of animals under NC Act.
In this regard, I note the following statement in the DES letter of 7 January 2021 :
The department considers complaints and related internal investigations as opportunities to identify areas requiring improvement and appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. Opportunities identified from the current internal review will be progressed internally by relevant departmental officers. While DES may have identified, from its internal review of your complaint, opportunities to improve its relevant procedures, it does not necessarily follow, in my view, that any
such improvements are the result of maladministration.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I have decided that further investigation of your complaint is unnecessary or unjustifiable and, therefore, the case file has been closed. I trust that the information provided assists your understanding as to the basis for my decision. If, having considered my reasons for decision, you are dissatisfied with it, you may request an internal review. An internal review request must clearly set out the grounds why you believe my decision is incorrect, unreasonable or wrong. Simply disagreeing with my decision, or restating your original complaint to this Office, will not be a sufficient basis for an internal review. For more information, this Office’s internal review policy and
procedure are available on-line. An internal review request made more than 28 days after the original decision will be accepted only in exceptional circumstances.