• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2006

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2006

CHAPTER 4: The Year in Review

BUSINESS PLANNING ACTIVITY IN 2006

Case Management

We completed 2,187 cases in 2006 and dealt with 8,103 enquiries. We set an end of year target for cases on hand at no greater than 784, while ensuring that older cases were prioritised for closure. Progress on achieving case targets is monitored at the monthly meetings of the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) and individual staff members are set their own targets under their PMDS plans to reflect the targets set at organisational level.

At the end of 2006 there were 896 cases on hand and those over one year old stood at 194. While overall valid complaints received in 2006 (2,245) showed no increase over the 2005 figure, the actual number received was about 100 greater than that estimated for target purposes. Bearing this in mind, the overall outcome in relation to meeting our targets was very satisfactory.

We are always anxious to ensure that efficient case management is not achieved at the expense of a high quality service to our complainants. We are using the data from our complainant satisfaction surveys (see below) to make our service more responsive to our clients’ needs.

Statement of Strategy 2007-2009

At the close of 2006, my Senior Management Team and I developed the broad outline of the Office’s Statement of Strategy for the period 2007-2009. Flowing from this process will be a range of action plans and projects to be delivered over the period of the strategy. Principal among them will be the publication of a greater number of reports relating to individual cases and to systemic issues arising from the examination of individual complaints. Certain other issues have been identified for particular attention in light of the recent extension of the Office’s remit to cover voluntary hospitals and other areas arising from the Disability Act 2005. Among these is the need to examine the Office’s internal operating structures to see if they are best suited to respond fully and effectively to the increased demands which will be made of the Office due to the increased range and volume of complaints which will arise as a result of the extension of remit. In addition, the Office needs to devise strategies to ensure that the extended role of the Office is communicated to those sectors of the public who might need to avail of our services in these new areas. There is also a recognition that Ireland has an increasingly diverse society and there is a need to raise awareness of the Office in all sectors of that society.

Survey of Complainant Satisfaction Levels

I reported last year on a major survey of all complainants who had their cases finalised by my Office within a specific twelve month period. They were surveyed on a broad range of issues in relation to their experience of the service which the Office had delivered in the course of the examination of their complaints. The survey was followed by a series of complainant focus groups on a nation-wide basis, in which the issues identified in the survey responses were teased out in greater detail.

Key suggestions which emerged from the survey were the need to give more information about the role of the Ombudsman from the outset; more information about the complaint examination process; and more information about how the case was progressing and how much longer it was likely to take. Scope for improvement in our service included the need to involve complainants more in the complaint examination process; the level of personal contact with complainants; and the quality of explanation of final decisions. I undertook a review of our complaint examination practices and procedures and I have introduced a series of initiatives which take on board these suggestions for improvement.

The major initiative which I have undertaken is a process of ongoing quarterly surveys of complainant satisfaction levels following the closure of their cases. The surveys seek their views on how well we have performed under seven key service indicators which have been developed from the main survey and the focus groups.

These include:

• the initial contact with the Office;

• the extent to which the complaint examination process was explained at the outset;

• the extent to which they were afforded an opportunity to make their case;

• the extent to which the Office kept them advised of progress;

• the clarity of the information, oral and written, given to them in the course of the examination;

• the clarity of the reasons given in the final decision letter on their case, and

• the manner in which they were dealt with by individual staff members in the course of the complaint examination.

The results of the surveys to hand at the time of preparation of this Report indicate the following satisfaction rates:

• 83% in relation to the initial contact;

• 76% in relation to our explanation of the investigation process;

• 76% in relation to the opportunity to present their case;

• 61% in relation to being kept advised of progress;

• 67% in relation to the clarity of information;

• 62% in relation to reasons for our decisions, and

• 79% in relation to treatment by members of my staff.

I will be striving to ensure that my Office achieves improved satisfaction levels in all these areas over time. A range of mechanisms are being put in place to bring this about. At an organisational level this includes more detailed information material being provided to every complainant at the outset as to how the complaint process operates. At individual staff member level my Office is using the Performance Management Development System to guide and support individual staff members to provide further improved service to our complainants.

Survey of Oireachtas Members

During the year my Office conducted a survey of Oireachtas members to gauge their levels of satisfaction with the service my Office provides to them in relation to the handling of complaints they refer to my Office. There was a very encouraging response rate of 58.9%.

The survey revealed that the two most important factors in generating satisfaction with my Office’s services were its effectiveness in resolving complaints, and the accessibility of the Office to individual Oireachtas members. The results also show that the higher the level of engagement with my Office, the greater the level of satisfaction with the service. This suggests that once members become engaged with my Office, they view it as delivering a high quality service.

The results also revealed that members generally are not frequent users of my Office’s services. For example, 39% of D‡il members and 52% of Seanad members did not refer any complaints to my Office in the previous 12 months. Among the reasons given for no contact was unfamiliarity with the Ombudsman’s role and complaint examination procedures.

The survey revealed that the members would like the Office to publish more details of case outcomes together with information on the types of issues that the Office can and cannot examine. They also expressed a desire for more information on how to make a complaint, contact points and remit and a briefing session for members on the role of the Ombudsman. I intend to develop a number of initiatives arising from the survey, with a view to improving the overall effectiveness of the Office for public representatives. I will be contacting members after the general election with details of the practical implementation of these initiatives.

Gender Equality

A Gender Equality Group monitors the Office’s gender balance targets and the factors that may influence the achievement of these targets such as:

• staff participation in promotional competitions;

• training and development initiatives;

• the gender makeup of interview boards for internal/interdepartmental competitions;

• the take up of family friendly (Work/Life Balance) initiatives (flexitime, work-sharing, term-time, career breaks);

• the distribution of men and women across the sections of the Office.

It reports on these issues to the Management Advisory Committee twice yearly. The Group also gender proofs relevant new Office policies and documents. The Office’s gender targets apply to grades at Executive Officer level and above in the Offices of the Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner and the Secretariat to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Civil Service Performance Verification Group

The Civil Service Performance Verification Group (CSPVG) was established under Sustaining Progress (Social Partnership Agreement 2003-2005) to verify that satisfactory progress was being made by Departments and Offices in relation to the modernisation commitments under the agreement. The Office reported on two occasions during 2006 to the CSPVG on progress achieved. On each occasion the CSPVG agreed that the progress achieved warranted payment of the pay increases due under the Agreement.

Other Activities

Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

Last year I reported that the Government had approved the Heads of an Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, with a target date of mid-2006 for publication of the text of this Bill. Once again, as in past years, I have to report that this commitment has not been met. While the Bill is included in the legislative programme for 2007, at the time of writing, it is clear that publication of the Bill will not be realised within the lifetime of the present Government. The purpose of the Bill is to widen the remit of my Office to a range of additional bodies, including Institutes of Technology, Universities, Vocational Education Committees, FçS, Regional Fisheries Boards and the claims functions of the National Treasury Management Agency. The enactment of this Bill is a very important link in the chain of administrative accountability in Irish public administration, and it is most disappointing to have to report yet more delays in the enacting of this legislation.

Health Act 2004

The establishment of a statutory complaints procedure, which came into effect on 1 January 2007, has brought the major hospitals in the Dublin area, the so called Public Voluntary Hospitals, within my jurisdiction, as well as other similar hospitals in the rest of the country, together with institutions nation-wide providing services on behalf of the HSE to the intellectually disabled. Many of these institutions are unfamiliar with the operation of my Office and, consequently, I commenced a series of initiatives to develop an awareness among these organisations as to their responsibilities under the new procedures. The focus in the initiatives is concentrating on the Statement of Good Practice For The Public Health Service In Dealing With Patients, which I have developed from my experience of dealing with complaints against those hospitals that were administered by the former health boards. The Statement also takes account of the ethical guidelines published by the Medical Council and the Code of Professional Conduct published by An Bord Altranais. I see this Statement as a code of good practice for the health service in dealing with patients and, together with the Ombudsman Act, I intend to use it as a framework in my examination of complaints relating to public health services; so as to ensure that, in effect, it becomes a living reality for all patients. The Statement of Good Practice can be viewed in Chapter 8 of the publication entitled Complaints Against the Public Health Service which is on my Office’s website [www.ombudsman.ie].

Extension of Ombudsman Link Service

I reported last year (2005 Annual Report, page 27) on the Ombudsman Link Service which is a new service being provided through Citizens Information Services (CICs) in certain areas which allows members of the public easier access to the services of my Office. Basically the service assists CIC staff to identify and submit potential complaints which my Office can examine on behalf of members of the public. It is my intention, over time, to build on this initiative as part of the process of reaching out to potential complainants and to raise wider awareness of my Office’s services.

In June 2006 I spoke at the launch of a policy paper on family reunification which was published by the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI). During my speech I gave a commitment that my Office would enter into discussions with the ICI with a view to the possible introduction of an Ombudsman Link Service on a pilot basis through the ICI. A number of follow up meetings took place between the ICI and my staff during 2006 and it is hoped to have the pilot project up and running during 2007.

In addition, I have been in contact with the Society of St Vincent De Paul in relation to its network of local conferences as a potential area for further development of the Link Service, and with Comhairle in relation to its development of a national advocacy service in the same context. I would hope to advance these developments in 2007.

British and Irish Ombudsman Association Annual Meeting

My Office is a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) and its 2006 Annual Meeting was held in Dublin in May. The theme of the meeting was “Ombudsmen - A Perspective from the Island of Ireland”. On 22 May a series of workshops and seminars was held in the Royal College of Physicians on current All-Ireland and cross border issues and developments. This event was chaired by Dr Tom Frawley, Assembly Ombudsman and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. After I had welcomed the participants and given an introductory speech, there were contributions from the guest speakers, Dr Maurice Manning, President, Irish Human Rights Commission, Mr Bob Collins, Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, Mr Joe Meade, Financial Services Ombudsman and Nuala O’Loan, Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman.

On the evening of 22 May the Department of the Taoiseach held a reception in Government Buildings for BIOA members and guests. The reception was hosted by Mr Tom Kitt, TD, Minister for State at the Department of the Taoiseach.

On 23 May the Annual Meeting was held in Dublin Castle International Conference Centre. This event was chaired by Ms Ann Abraham, UK Parliamentary Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman for England and BIOA Chair. The other speakers were Mr Dermot Ahern TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Dr Tom Frawley, Assembly Ombudsman and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints who delivered a speech on behalf of Mr David Hanson MP, UK Minister for State for Northern Ireland who was unable to attend due to other urgent commitments.

Principles of Good Complaint Handling

In 2005, my Office accepted an invitation from the Chairman of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) to participate in a working group to develop a “Guide to Principles of Good Complaint Handling”. The Guide was launched at the BIOA Biennial Conference in April 2007. These principles represent models of best practice which will be of assistance to all complaint handling bodies in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. Training workshops, which will allow interested BIOA member organisations to assess their own complaint handling performance, will be held later this year in London and Dublin.

During 2006, my Office also accepted an invitation from the United Kingdom Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ms Ann Abraham, to participate in a working group to develop “Principles of Good Administration”. The task of developing the principles drew, to some extent, on the work of other ombudsman offices in this area, including my own Office’s “Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants”. The principles, which were recently launched following an extensive public consultation exercise, are broad statements of what public bodies within the UK Ombudsman’s jurisdiction should do to deliver good administration and good customer service and they offer a clear explanation for both public bodies and complainants of how her Office approaches complaints. The working group has now moved on to develop guidance on redress - also with the involvement of my Office. This work also parallels a similar project on redress in Ireland which is underway for some time now under the auspices of an interdepartmental high level working group co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach.

Conference on Public Sector Modernisation

On 25 May 2006 I spoke at a major conference on the theme of Public Sector Modernisation-Change & Challenges from SMI to Benchmarking. The conference was organised by Public Affairs Ireland and other speakers included An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern TD, Mr Dermot McCarthy, Secretary General, Department of an Taoiseach and Mr Nick Manning, Head of Division, Public Sector Management & Performance, OECD.

The title of my speech was Serving the Public: has the Modernisation Agenda Delivered? Commenting in my speech on the issue of accountability and the Irish public service I stated, inter alia, that:

• “The bodies that make up the public service should be held accountable by enabling and encouraging members of the public to be vigilant in the following three ways:

• First, there should be transparency in the decision-making process within public bodies. Members of the public can only begin to understand and develop trust in public bodies if they can follow their actions and have access to their documents.

• Second, public bodies should have written criteria or principles of good administration to guide them in carrying out their functions. Members of the public cannot even begin to question the actions of public bodies unless the “rules of the game” are clear to them.

• Third, members of the public should have the facility to challenge the decisions of public bodies either through the courts or through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.”

The full text of my speech is available on my Office’s website [www.ombudsman.ie].

Language Rights Charter

The full provisions of the Official Languages Act 2003 became law on 14 July 2006. In advance of that date and to mark the event Sean Ó Cuirreáin, An Coimisinéir Teanga published the country’s first Language Rights Charter. The bilingual Charter sets out ten basic rights accorded in law to Irish speakers in dealing with state organisations including the right to the use of Irish in court proceedings and documentation, in the Houses of the Oireachtas, in correspondence, and in specific key documents and mailshots issued by state organisations. The Charter reflects the rights already set out in law and does not create any new rights.

An Coimisinéir Teanga invited members of the Joint-Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for Irish language affairs and a small number of public bodies and Departments to an event held at his Office in An Spidéal, County Galway on 28 June 2006 to mark the publication of the Charter. Framed copies of the new Charter were presented by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Éamon Ó Cuív T.D., to representatives of those bodies including my Office, the Office of the Information Commissioner, An Garda Síoch‡na, the Revenue Commissioners and some local authorities, as well as Irish language and Gaeltacht organisations in recognition of the progress made to date in implementing the Act. An Coimisinéir Teanga also acknowledged the specific advice and assistance provided by the Offices of the Ombudsman/Information Commissioner in setting up his Office.

European Year of Equal Opportunities for All

I was very pleased to accept an invitation from the Chief Executive Officer of the Equality Authority for my Office to be involved in the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All during 2007. The European Year in Ireland will be a year to celebrate progress made in promoting equal opportunities for all and combatting discrimination, to acknowledge significant inequalities that persist and to renew commitment to a more equal society.

With this in mind, the Equality Authority, the Citizens Information Board (formerly Comhairle) and my Office, have come together to commission a research project on approaches by statutory bodies in Ireland and in other jurisdictions on the provision of information on rights and, in particular, best practice models in relation to the provision of information on systems of redress for individuals who feel that their rights have been infringed. The project is EU funded and I am hopeful that the results will be a source of new strategic thinking and practical ideas for statutory bodies involved in the provision of information on rights.

Notices issued under Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980

If there is an unacceptable delay on the part of a public body in responding to my Office in the course of the examination of a complaint a statutory Section 7 notice is issued seeking the required information. A breakdown of the number of notices issued was first published in my Office’s 1998 Annual Report. The annual pattern of such notices issued since then has been as follows:

The table below is a breakdown of the Section 7 notices issued in 2006.

Year	No. of Section 7 Notices Issued
1998	45
1999	27
2000	14
2001	19
2002	16
2003	12
2004	6
2005	31
2006	18

  The table below is a breakdown of the Section 7 notices issued in 2006

 

Body	No. of Section 7 Notices Issued
Civil Service
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources	2
Health Service Executive
Eastern Region, South Western Area	3
Eastern Region, Northern Area	1
Local Authorities
Kildare County Council	5
Dublin City Council	3
Galway County Council	2
Offaly County Council	1
Tullamore Town Council	1
Total	18

I noted last year that the number of Section 7 notices which my Office had to issue had reached an unacceptably high level compared to previous years. While there was some improvement in 2006 it is disappointing to see that Kildare County Council was issued with the highest number of Section 7 notices which was also the case in 2005 when I singled out the Council for criticism for repeated delays in responding to my Office.

Public Access and Awareness

During 2006 my Office continued its efforts to bring our services to the general public throughout the country in order to heighten accessibility and raise awareness of those services. During 2006 my staff carried out monthly visits to a number of Citizens Information Centres (CICs) and there were also one-day regional visits to seven other locations.

In 2006 the CIC visits were to Cork, Galway, Limerick and Coolock in North Dublin. A total of 194 new complaints were received during these CIC visits of which 124 were valid and 70 (or 36%) were invalid. We are most grateful for the support of the CICs in delivering this service.

Staff from my Office also made one-day visits to Carrick-on-Shannon, Roscommon, Drogheda, Dundalk, Castlebar, Kilkenny and Carlow. Staff met 264 callers during these visits and 190 new valid complaints were received. The combined total of new valid complaints received as a result of the monthly and one-day visits amounted to 314. Details of the 2007 programme of visits are available from my Office’s website.

Visitors to my Office

In May 2006 I received a visit from Ms Alison Hirschel, Law Attorney at the Michigan Poverty Law Program. She was accompanied by Ms Maureen Mickus, who is a gerontologist and faculty researcher in the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University. The purpose of the visit was to share our experiences in seeking to help people in long term care. During our discussions I outlined how my Office is in a position to assist individuals in long term care and also how my Office can bring about systemic improvements arising from the outcome of individual complaints.

Also in May, I met with Ontario’s Provincial Ombudsman, Mr AndrŽ Marin to brief him on the work of my Office. Mr Marin was accompanied by Mr Gareth Jones, Director of the Special Ombudsman Response Team in the Ontario office.

In July 2006 I met with a delegation of five officials from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia during which I outlined the role and functions of my Office.

ISSUES ARISING FROM INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS

Aftermath of Investigation Report on Sligo General Hospital

In my 2005 Annual Report (page 8) I reported on the outcome of an investigation of a complaint against Sligo General Hospital. I want to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge the comprehensive steps which have been taken in Sligo to rectify past failings in the provision of patient care which were highlighted in my Office’s Report.

The complaint came from the members of a family, whose father died in January 2000, two days after he had been admitted to Sligo General Hospital. My investigation dealt with two main issues 1) shortcomings in the standard of care and attention that the hospital afforded to the patient, and 2) the inadequate manner in which the hospital dealt with the family’s subsequent complaint in relation to the standard of care and attention.

A Philosophy of Care has been drawn up by the nursing staff working on the ward in which the patient at the centre of the complaint was treated. I am heartily encouraged by the concepts behind the philosophy, which I understand have been embraced by all members of staff. The words “working in partnership with the patient” and “individuality of care” are key to ensuring that the patient remains the primary focus in the provision of a quality service.

Close to my heart is the issue of dying with dignity and that is why I recommended in my report that protocols should be developed for all staff in relation to treating recently bereaved people with compassion and understanding. I understand that the nursing team sought and obtained the assistance of the Irish Hospice Foundation because their key priority was to change the culture of care in respect of dying, death and bereavement in Sligo General Hospital. This has now led to the development of standards and policies in the area of death, dying and bereavement and I understand that the North West Hospice also assisted Sligo General in their efforts to bring the ethos of hospice care into Sligo General Hospital. By engaging with the Hospice Foundation’s national programme, the staff at Sligo Hospital have helped to ensure that they have in place systems, policies and practices which will enable them to provide the best care possible to meet the individual needs of patients and their families.

I was also pleased to learn that a Steering Committee had been established which will drive new initiatives in relation to patient autonomy, integrated care, communication skills and dignity and dying. Perhaps more importantly, this Committee will ensure that these initiatives are acted upon, and are continuously evaluated within the hospital itself.

A communications protocol has also been developed which highlights best practice in relation to the provision of information to patients and their families, and there is an onus on the line manager in each speciality to ensure that all staff working in their area have read and understand the policy and guidelines in operation. In this context, I note that the protocol provides that nursing staff must actively engage with the patient and their families and be pro-active in the communication process. The point had been made to me by the family of the patient who died that they had to instigate contact with the nursing staff, and this lack of communication can often heighten the level of distrust and uncertainty experienced by relatives. The question had also arisen as to why a young medical intern had advised the family regarding their father’s medical condition. I am encouraged to note that this area has been addressed in the protocol which states that Senior House Officers and Medical Interns should not be involved in giving information to relatives.

Other important nursing issues which arose in the course of the complaint such as the placing of a fluid restriction notice sign over the patient’s bed, and the provision of oxygen to patients have been comprehensively addressed. In addition, I note that a Committee has been established to focus on eleven essential nursing care standards.

I think it is important that the best practice policies and procedures which the staff at Sligo General Hospital have adopted and implemented should be extended to other service providers throughout the Health Service Executive who might not have such protocols already in place.

Treatment of Cohabiting Couples

Over the years, my predecessors have drawn attention in Annual Reports to the difficulties arising from the fact that taxation and social welfare legislation treat cohabiting couples in a different manner. My Office continues to receive complaints about this matter, including three such complaints in 2006.

Basically, the law provides that the Department of Social and Family Affairs treats a cohabiting couple as if they are a married couple, accepting a cohabiting partner as a dependent and taking the joint incomes into account in relation to the assessment of means and eligibility for social welfare payments. On the other hand, the effect of the legislation governing the administration of taxation provides that the Revenue Commissioners treat a cohabiting couple as two separate individuals. Under the taxation code governing the payment of income tax credits may be allowed in respect of dependent relatives. However, the relevant legislation relating to tax credits specifically refers to people who are married or blood relatives. Under current tax legislation married couples can opt to be treated as two separate individuals with their own tax credits or have one spouse claim all tax credits in respect of both of them. Cohabiting couples have no such option, and therefore are prevented from transferring credits or making joint claims for reliefs available to married couples.

The complaints that I received in 2006 have highlighted how cohabiting couples are disadvantaged. In one case, a woman complained to me that while her cohabiting partner receives the tax credits of a single person, she would be assessed on his means if she applied for unemployment assistance and would in fact not be entitled to any payment on that basis. In another instance, a cohabiting couple who had incurred significant expenses arising from IVF treatment, complained that the legislation prevented them from enjoying the tax relief on medical expenses that a married couple in similar circumstances could enjoy. In this case, the Revenue had confined the reliefs to the income tax of the female partner and as her income was taxed at the lower rate, the relief was lower than would have been the case had the couple been subject to joint assessment. I asked the Revenue to review the case to determine if any portion of the medical expenses could be attributed to the man, allowing him as a higher taxpayer, to benefit from higher relief and they agreed to do this in this specific case.

However, the fundamental anomaly remains and can be a cause of confusion and resentment in those households maintained by cohabiting couples. Where public bodies are acting within the law I am limited to drawing attention to the apparent anomalies that may exist between different codes and the clarification of public policy in this area and any attendant legislative changes are a matter for the Oireachtas to pursue.

Review of Disabled Persons Grant (DPG) Scheme

In 2002 my Office wrote to the Department of the Environment and Local Government, now the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, concerning difficulties in relation to the payment of grants by local authorities under the DPG Scheme. These difficulties were of a financial nature in that some local authorities had been advising my Office that they did not have sufficient funds to meet the number of grant applications on hand.

The DPG scheme is a statutory one provided for in the Housing (Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 607/01). The only conditions set out in the regulations for qualification for the grant are:

• that the works applied for must be “reasonably necessary for the purpose of rendering a house more suitable for the accommodation of a member of the household” who is either physically or mentally handicapped or ill;

• the person must also be normally resident in the house.

My Office recognises that, in the absence of sufficient funds, a local authority may have to devise a system for prioritising applicants for such grants. My Office would have no difficulty with such a system of prioritisation, provided it is open and transparent, and that applicants are properly informed of the qualifying criteria, given reasons for decisions and advised of appeal mechanisms. My Office is aware that some local authorities have been using two common priority indicators i.e. medical need and works to be carried out, but others have added a third indicator in the form of a means test. This had led to inconsistency in the application of the scheme throughout the country.

My Office noted that there is no provision in the DPG regulations for the imposition of a means test and I indicated to the Department that, in my view, there is no clear provision in legislation for the imposition of a means test.

In response, the Department advised my Office that it was reviewing the scheme. This process took a number of years. In 2006 the Department advised that it was revising the scheme with the aim of developing a more seamless set of responses to the housing needs of older people and people with disabilities, by ensuring that “the available funding is targeted to those persons in greatest need of such assistance, to improve equity and consistency and to streamline administrative and operational procedures”. The Department stated that it had considered administrative aspects of the scheme with a view to maximising transparency and minimising the administrative burden from an applicant’s viewpoint.

In March 2007 the Department advised my Office that three new schemes will be introduced during 2007, a Housing Adaptation Grant for People with a Disability, a Mobility Aids Grant Scheme, and a scheme of Housing Aid for Older People. The revised schemes will address the issues previously raised by my Office with the Department regarding the operation of the current DPG Scheme. The new grants will be administered in a uniform manner across all local authorities and there will be a statutory means test. There will be no variation in the means test applied to applicants or to the levels of grant aid available. A Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, currently being drafted and expected to be published by early summer this year, includes provision for internal local authority reviews of prescribed housing decisions relating to individual households. This provision would provide an appeals process for applicants for the new Housing grants for Older People and People with a Disability.

The introduction by the Department of a uniform scheme of grants for the elderly and for persons with a disability is a significant development and, although long awaited, is very welcome from my perspective. Dealing with complaints from persons who have been subject to differing criteria imposed by different local authorities which resulted in different outcomes depending on where the person lived, has been somewhat frustrating over the years. I look forward to the implementation, nation-wide, of a more transparent and fairer system of grants for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Nursing Home Charges

The Health (Repayment Scheme) Act 2006 made provision for a scheme to repay the illegally raised health charges from fully eligible persons in publicly funded long term residential care. The Act also regulates patient private property accounts by way of the introduction of a statutory framework to protect patients’ interests. As with other aspects of the public health services my role in relation to decisions about these repayments is to protect individuals from unfair, unsound or unjust actions on the part of those who are entrusted to make these refunds. I have already received a number of complaints in this regard e.g. from individuals who have been refused admittance to the scheme, parents of adult children with intellectual disabilities and spouses in certain circumstances who have been refused admittance as a “connected person” under the Act. A connected person is an individual who can make an application for a recoverable health charge under the legislation. I anticipate that I will receive many other such complaints during 2007.

Change Urged to Improve Legislation on Planning Administration

My Office wrote to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in August 2005 concerning certain defects, as we saw it, in the planning legislation. Among the issues we raised was the lack of provision in the legislation for the correction of errors in planning decisions where such decisions were unclear or administratively erroneous e.g. missing words that change the meaning, typographical errors etc. It appeared to my Office that in the case of decisions of An Bord Plean‡la, the Board could not correct, invalidate or withdraw its decision once it had issued the decision to the planning authority. In order to rectify the matter proceedings would have to be initiated in the High Court by the member of the public who had been affected adversely. In certain instances I considered it to be an unfair and unreasonable situation where a third party objector to a planning application, for example, could end up with an unenforceable planning decision because of error, and his/her only remedy would be by way of judicial review in the High Court.

During 2006 new legislation on planning was enacted. I was very pleased to see that it included a provision for the amendment of a planning decision by the planning authority (local authority) or by An Bord Plean‡la. Section 30 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 authorises a planning authority or An Bord Plean‡la to amend a planning permission granted for the purpose of (i) correcting a clerical error, (ii) facilitating something that was intended but not expressly provided for in the permission or decision (iii) otherwise facilitating the operation of the permission or decision.

Performance by Kildare County Council

A survey of complaints received by my Office against Kildare County Council (KCC) since 2003 identified delay on the part of the Council as a very significant problem for my Office in processing complaints. These delays relate mainly to the provision of reports and responses to my Office in relation to complaints referred to the Council. In the course of 2005 it was necessary to issue a Section 7 notice to the Council on twelve occasions. (A Section 7 notice usually requires a named person to provide the report requested by a specific date, otherwise, the person would be required to attend at my Office to provide the information or report.) The twelve Section 7 notices should be viewed in the context of a total of 27 complaints received against the Council in that year. In 2006, five Section 7 notices issued in the context of 28 complaints received.

My Office does not take an inflexible approach to the difficulties that bodies within remit may have from time to time in terms of resources and staff. In the course of seminars and meetings held in various local authorities throughout the country over recent years, my Office has stressed the need for local authorities to advise my Office if difficulty and/or delay is likely to arise in relation to a request for a report on any particular complaint. My Office does not issue Section 7 notices lightly, or without first having given the body concerned ample opportunity through reminder letters and phone calls to deal with the matter. My Office is conscious that the number of Section 7 notices issued to a body is published in my Annual Report (see page 33).

The table below sets out the picture in recent years with regard to the issue of Section 7 notices, generally, and to local authorities, including KCC.

The fact that no Section 7 notices are recorded against KCC in 2003 and 2004 does not mean that I was satisfied with the level or speed of response from the Council to complaints being processed in those years. The number of Section 7 notices issued to KCC in 2005 (12) is unprecedented for a single body when taken in the context of the total number of complaints to my Office against the Council in 2005 (27).

My Office’s special report did not set out to analyse the reasons why Kildare County Council has provided a less than adequate service to the Ombudsman. It may be a matter of internal communications rather than any systemic inertia in dealing with my Office’s correspondence. Whatever the reason, it is for the Council to address the matter and ensure that its liaison procedures are sufficiently robust to deliver information/reports to my Office in an appropriate and timely way.

Evidence of improvement by KCC is imperative in 2007 and beyond. KCC, needs to demonstrate that it takes notification of complaints from my Office seriously, as the vast majority of local authorities do, and that it is prepared to provide my Office with the information requested in an appropriate and timely manner. I do not wish to be the position of having to make further reports about the Council’s performance in the future.

Year	Total Section 7 notices issued - all bodies in remit	Total Section 7 notices issued - local authorities	Total Section 7 notices issued - KCC
2003	12	7	Nil
2004	6	3	Nil
2005	31	22	12
2006	20	12	5

Back to contents