Banner:Handling of Complaints

bulletWhat are the matters handled under the Redress System?

The Legislative Council Redress System is a system operated by the Legislative Council to receive and handle complaints from members of the public who are aggrieved by Government actions or policies. It also deals with public representations on Government policies and legislation as well as other matters of public concern.

bullet

How does the Redress System operate?

In groups of six, Members take turns to be on duty each week to oversee the system and to give guidance to staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat's Complaints Division in processing cases. In addition, Members take turns to be on "ward duty" during their duty week to meet deputations and individual complainants with appointments.

bullet How is a complaint handled?

A complaint may be lodged with the Legislative Council Secretariat's Complaints Division by phone, post, fax, e-mail, complaint form or in person
arrow
Complaints Officer receives and examines
relevant information from the complainant

arrow
If allegation concerns matters within the jurisdiction of independent or statutory
bodies (such as ICAC Complaints Committee, Independent Police Complaints
Council, Administrative Appeals Board, etc.), complainant will be advised to
lodge the complaint directly with those bodies.
arrow
Complaints Officer obtains relevant
information from the Government
arrow
Complaints Officer examines the
complaint in the light of
Government policies and procedures
and consults Members where necessary

arrow
Members are unable to help if:
  • the complaint is unjustified
  • the original policy or decision of the Government is considered appropriate
  • the remedy sought cannot be supported
arrow
arrow
If the complaint is justified, Members may:

  • ask the Government to take remedial action
    and/or
  • refer the issue to the relevant Legislative Council committee or raise the issue at a Legislative Council meeting, if a change in policy or law is considered necessary
arrow
Inform complainant of the outcome


bullet How can requests for interview with Members be made?

All requests for interviews with Members at the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat must be made in advance through the Complaints Division. It is for the Members to decide whether and when an interview should be arranged.

An interview between a Duty Roster Member and an individual client will normally be arranged within one week after the Complaints Division has obtained the relevant background information and comments from the Administration / public organization(s) on the complaint cases. For an interview between Duty Roster Members and a deputation, it will normally be arranged within 7 to 12 working days after receipt of the detailed submission on the issues raised.

bullet What are the matters outside the scope of the Redress System?

  • request for legal advice or legal services
  • complaints against individual members of the Legislative Council and District Councils
  • private disputes
  • court decisions, matters which are sub judice or could involve criminal charges and matters relating to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings
  • complaints and matters which are handled by independent or statutory bodies (e.g. ICAC Complaints Committee, Independent Police Complaints Council, Administrative Appeals Board, etc.)
  • labour disputes between individual employees and employers (except those of wide public concern or relating to discrimination of trade union leaders) and
  • matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

For enquiry about the Redress System or to lodge a complaint, please contact the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat.

Opening hours : 8:45 am - 6:00 pm (Monday - Friday)
Hotline : 2526 4027
Fax : 2521 7518
E-mail : complaints@legco.gov.hk
Address : 5/F, Citibank Tower
3 Garden Road
Central
Hong Kong



bullet

The handling of personal data

Personal data of the complainant may be collected and transferred to the parties concerned by the Complaints Division for the handling of the complaint. While the supply of personal data by the complainant is voluntary, the Complaints Division may not be able to handle the complaint if the complainant refuses to supply or release his/her personal data. The complainant has the right to request access to or correction of the personal data collected by the Complaints Division in accordance with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486). A request for personal data access or correction should be made in writing to the Complaints Division with the relevant case number.

bullet Issues referred by DRMs to LegCo committees
from 1 October 2009 to 19 March 2010

bullet Complaint statistics

Between 1 October 2008 and 30 September 2009, the Complaints Division assisted Members in handling 1 884 cases. These comprised 368 group representatives and 1 516 individual cases.


bullet Highlight of complaint cases concluded in the fourth quarter of 2009

A total of 408 cases handled under the LegCo Redress System were concluded in the fourth quarter of 2009. This included 70 cases involving deputations and 338 individuals' cases. Some of these cases are outlined below:

(a)Owners of a private housing development objected the proposed construction of two tunnels underneath their buildings and the drill-and-blast method adopted by the Administration for the West Island Line (WIL) project. They solicited Members' assistance to urge the Administration to consider alternative alignments for the tunnels and engage an independent consultant to conduct a risk assessment on the proposed blasting methods for the work. Members conveyed the deputation's views to the Public Works Subcommittee and the Finance Committee.

The Administration advised Members that one of the proposed tunnels was a pedestrian subway used to connect the new station to the proposed entrance immediately to the north of the housing development. The other was a temporary construction tunnel which would mainly be used to remove the excavated material from the stations and tunnels comprising the WIL project. Both tunnels would be located in rock and would lie at least 10 m below the foundations of the housing development. The tunnels passing underneath the housing development were the only viable alignment that would not clash with the foundations of other buildings, and could provide direct access for workers to bring in building materials and move out the excavated rocks etc. without causing traffic congestion on the roads. To assess the blasting effects, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) would engage an independent consultant to monitor the blasting and vibrations before and throughout the construction period, and would communicate with the local communities through liaison groups. The Administration assured Members that Hong Kong had a long history of using the drill-and-blast method for tunnel construction and a lot of blasting operations had been conducted safely in close proximity to buildings in dense built-up areas. The Administration would exercise stringent risk control, and undertake safety measures and mitigation arrangements to protect the buildings from possible damage. Members requested the Administration and MTRCL to meet with local residents to explain to them the contents of the blasting assessment reports and also consult them on the timing and locations of the blasting operations and implement appropriate mitigation measures to minimise nuisance and inconvenience.

(b)Stall operators of a public market complained that they had to install false ceilings or partitions to protect their products from burglar and mice/cats. Having received warning letters from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) for breach of the Tenancy Agreement and Fire Abatement Notice from the Fire Services Department (FSD) for unauthorized alterations which blocked the sprinkler system in the stalls, the operators solicited Members' assistance to urge FEHD to assume the role of landlord and carry out rectification work. Subsequently, Members conducted a site visit to the public market and held two case conferences with the Administration to follow up the case.

FSD advised Members that obstruction to sprinkler heads would reduce the designed effectiveness of the sprinkler system and thus constituted a fire hazard. Stall operators were thus required to remove the unauthorized false ceiling or relocate/add sprinkler heads to avoid danger to life or property which could arise in the event of a fire. Taking into account the practical difficulties faced by the stall operators concerned, FSD had permitted 70% of the whole ceiling area being kept free from obstruction and the use of plastic sheet to cover the ceiling area. FEHD also offered stall operators who had financial difficulties to pay for the rectification work by monthly instalments. Members were of the view that the Administration should take a more proactive role to help the stall operators concerned. At the request of Members, FEHD undertook to solicit help from the Architectural Services Department for the removal of the unauthorized alterations and installation of anti-burglar net for the stalls concerned.

(c)A deputation comprising ethnic minority students and their parents sought Members' assistance on the examination fee of the General Certificate of Secondary Examination (GCSE) (Chinese) Examination. The deputation pointed out that in order to fulfil the basic requirement for enrolment to local universities, ethnic minority students had to pass an examination on Chinese language subject. Although the examination fee for the Chinese language subject under the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE) was at a much affordable level, it was difficult for ethnic minority students to pass that examination. As such, ethnic minority students would usually sit for the GCSE (Chinese) Examination as an alternative to attain the requisite qualification. However, the examination fee of GCSE (Chinese) was too high that most of the ethnic minority students who came from low-income families could not afford it. The deputation therefore requested the Government to subsidize the GCSE (Chinese) examination fee.

Members shared the deputation's concern that the examination fee for the GCSE (Chinese) Examination was much higher than that of the HKCEE (Chinese). In order to be in line with the Government's policy to facilitate the integration of ethnic minority students into the local community, Members considered that the Government should actively draw up appropriate measures to encourage those students to learn and sit for the GCSE (Chinese) Examination by, say, subsidizing the examination fee. In response, the Administration took heed of Members' suggestion and reduced the GCSE (Chinese) examination fee to a level on par with the HKCEE (Chinese) examination fee as an affirmative action to encourage more ethnic minority students to learn Chinese.

(d)A group of residents of Kwai Fong area solicited Members' assistance regarding their objection to the proposed public rental housing development at the ex-Kwai Chung Police Married Quarters (KCPMQ) site by the Administration. They were concerned that the proposed development would bring about more population into the area which would worsen the existing living environment and result in overloading the existing vehicular traffic nearby. They also considered that community facilities were insufficiently provided in Kwai Fong area and the site was the last piece of land available for community use in this area.

At the case conference with the Administration, Members expressed concern about the traffic congestion and insufficient transport facilities in Kwai Fong area. They queried whether the existing road networks and the transport infrastructure would be able to cope with additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic if public rental housing was developed at the ex-KCPMQ site. In response, the Transport Department advised Members that the subway connecting Kwai Fong MTR Station with the Kwai Fuk Road Roundabout would be completed to alleviate the traffic condition in Kwai Fong area. The Housing Department informed Members that it would closely liaise with the Transport Department to address the local concerns about transport facilities and explore the possibility of incorporating transport improvement facilities including accommodating mini-bus stations within the ex-KCPMQ site so as to improve the transport performance of the subject and its wider areas.

The Town Planning Board held a meeting to consider the representations and comments in respect of the proposed development. The Board decided to defer a decision on the development pending the submission by the Housing Department of (a) an update of the preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment with specific suggestions to resolve the current traffic problems in the area; and (b) comprehensive information on the provision of open space and other community facilities in the area and assessment of the feasibility to incorporate the needed facilities into the ex-KCPMQ site.

(e)A concern group comprising residents of Pak Kwai House and Hop Kwai House sought Members' assistance in urging the Administration to provide a covered pedestrian footbridge connecting Pak Kwai House and Hop Kwai House of the Kwai Chung Estate to the Kwai Chung Shopping Centre. The deputation pointed out that currently the residents of the two buildings had to travel a long distance and cross at least two road junctions to reach the shopping centre which was dangerous to the elderly, disabled persons and young children. Furthermore, pedestrians were also exposed to adverse weather.

Members took up the case with the Administration at a case conference. The Administration advised Members that after consulting the residents of the Kwai Chung Estate, a series of road improvement works had been carried out to facilitate residents of the Kwai Chung Estate (including the residents of Pak Kwai House and Hop Kai House) going to the Kwai Chung Shopping Centre. According to the traffic consultancy study, the current pedestrian flow at the concerned road junctions represented only 25% of the full capacity of the improved road system, which could not justify the construction of a new pedestrian footbridge. However, in order to enhance the safety and comfort of pedestrians using the at grade pedestrian crossings, the Administration undertook to take appropriate traffic management measures to allow more green time for pedestrians to cross the road and to build a 40-meter long rain shelter along the road.


bullet Duty Roster Members in the coming weeks

(as at 17.3.2010)

15.3.2010 - 19.3.2010 Ir Dr Hon Raymond HO Chung-tai, SBS, S.B.St.J., JP
Dr Hon David LI Kwok-po, GBM, GBS, JP
Hon TAM Yiu-chung, GBS, JP
Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, SBS, JP
Hon KAM Nai-wai, MH
Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai, BBS, JP

22.3.2010 - 26.3.2010 Hon James TO Kun-sun
Hon Mrs Sophie LEUNG LAU Yau-fun, GBS, JP
Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung
Hon LAU Kong-wah, JP
Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, SBS, JP
Dr Hon LEUNG Ka-lau

29.3.2010 - 1.4.2010 Hon Miriam LAU Kin-yee, GBS, JP
Hon Timothy FOK Tsun-ting, GBS, JP
Hon LEE Wing-tat
Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming, GBS, JP
Hon Starry LEE Wai-king
Dr Hon PAN Pey-chyou

*This roster is subject to variation without prior notice.

*All requests for interviews with Legislative Council Members at the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat MUST be made in advance through the Complaints Division (Hotline : 2526 4027). It is for the Members to decide whether and when an interview should be arranged.

*An interview between a Duty Roster Member and an individual client will normally be arranged within one week after the Complaints Division has obtained the relevant background information and comments from the Administration on the complaint cases. For an interview between Duty Roster Members and a deputation, it will normally be arranged within 7 to 12 working days after receipt of the detailed submission on the issues raised.

bulletLegislative Council Members' Meetings with The Ombudsman

bulletComplaint Form