• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2008 (text version)

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2008 (text version)

8.2 Disability Act 2005 – Comment on low level of complaints

Since the enactment of the Disability Act 2005, my jurisdiction has included the examination of complaints about the failure of public bodies to comply with the accessibility requirements specified in Part 3 of that Act. However, before a person brings such a complaint to my Office, they must first ask the public body concerned to investigate the matter. To facilitate the making of such complaints to a public body, Section 39 of the Disability Act requires the heads of all public bodies to “... draw up procedures in relation to the making and investigation of complaints and such other matters relating to complaints as he or she considers appropriate and shall cause the procedures to be published”.

Since the Disability Act came into force the number of complaints to my Office about alleged non-compliance with Part 3 has been very low. What I have also noticed is that most of these complaints are what I categorise as 'premature complaints' - in other words, the person has not first asked the public body to investigate the matter. In these cases, when I advise the person that they must do this, they invariably tell me that there is no information available to let them know how to make complaints to the public body concerned. In addition, many individuals tell me that because of their disabilities, they would require assistance to make a complaint but that no such assistance appears to be available from the public bodies concerned. In this regard, section 26 of the Disability Act requires each head of a public body to "... authorise at least one of his or her officers ...  to provide or arrange for and co-ordinate the provision of assistance and guidance to persons with disabilities in accessing its services". These officers are referred to in the Disability Act as "Access Officers". I have always taken the view that a complaints procedure is an integral part of the services provided by a public body and therefore it is my view that access officers should be available to "... provide or arrange for and co-ordinate the provision of assistance and guidance to persons with disabilities ..." , wishing to make a formal complaint to that public body.

In light of this feedback, my Office undertook a survey of the internet sites of 105 public bodies which represented a cross-section of government departments, local authorities, State and semi-State bodies and Ombudsman Offices. The intent of the survey was to establish the extent to which information about access officers is available and also whether the bodies had "published" the procedures for making complaints under the Disability Act on their websites. While this was effectively a snapshot in time, I was very concerned with the findings.

While there is no specific requirement under the Disability Act to publish information about access officers, it seems to me unhelpful that a public body would appoint an access officer but not inform its clients of this, or how to go about contacting him or her. Of the 105 websites surveyed, only 20 (19%) contained information about access officers and for many of these, ease of access to the information proved difficult. Only five (4.8%) of the websites surveyed contained information about how to make a complaint specifically in relation to the failure of the body to comply with Part 3 of the Disability Act.

My Office has contacted certain public bodies to clarify matters in relation to specific complaints that I had received about their failure to comply with the Disability Act. Arising out of these contacts, there would appear to be a serious lack of knowledge among the staff of some public bodies about what is required of them under the Disability Act. It also appears that many of them are not aware that the National Disability Authority has produced a code of practice to help public bodies to achieve compliance with the Disability Act or that, if a public body is in compliance with this code of practice, it is deemed to be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Disability Act.

My role under the Disability Act is to examine complaints. However, I feel that I must also highlight the failure by some public bodies to put arrangements in place which are required by law and also the apparent lack of understanding, within some public bodies, of what is required of them to achieve compliance with the Disability Act. These failures, I feel, must seriously hinder very vulnerable people in their efforts to avail of services to which they are legally entitled. Ultimately, these failures undermine the statutory right of people with disabilities to complain where public bodies fail in their duty to them. This is wholly unacceptable.

Back to contents