Office of the Ombudsman, Ireland
Contact Information

The Office of the Ombudsman is open between 9.15 and 5.30 Monday to Thursday and 9.15 to 5.15 on Friday.

18 Lr. Leeson Street, Dublin 2.

Tel: +353-1-639 5600

Lo-call: 1890 223030

Fax: (01) 639 5674 Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.ie

Email

Press Releases

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Date released: 05.07.2005

The theme of the 2004 report is The Ombudsman and Older People and it includes, in Chapter 2, a number of cases where her Office has assisted older people in their dealings with public bodies.

Also relevant to this theme are nursing home charges and, at page 28 of the Report, Emily O'Reilly describes how her Office can assist those people who have been disadvantaged as a result of the nursing homes controversy.

Emily O'Reilly also announced her plans to give feedback to public bodies on their complaint handling performance. Her first report will cover the Health Services Executive (HSE), a new body with new structures but one which faces old problems, many of which have come to the attention of her Office over the years. She will present her report to the HSE later this year and it will cover the following areas:

  • the main issues of concern in the health services from the Ombudsman's perspective;
  • lessons to be learned from cases handled in the past, and
  • guidance on principles of best practice in aspects of health service administration.

Main features of the Annual Report:

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Bearing in mind that 2004 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsman in Ireland Emily O'Reilly recalls that as far back as 1996 the Constitution Review Group report recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman should be given constitutional status. Commenting on that report's recommendation she goes on to say:

"In the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General monitors financial accountability, the report stated, the Ombudsman monitors administrative accountability. Administrative accountability, in effect, should be given the same constitutional importance as financial accountability. Many Western European democracies provide for an Ombudsman in their constitutions. I have also been greatly struck by the number of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe who view the creation of an ombudsman office - through the Constitution and often in tandem with the introduction of freedom of information legislation - as a hallmark of their fledgling democracy. "

Chapter Two:

Emily O'Reilly elaborates on the theme of her Annual Report The Ombudsman and Older People in the following terms:

"As Ombudsman, I have no role in enacting legislation or in promoting one policy initiative over another. But I do have a role in ensuring that people are treated fairly by the administration, and, when it comes to the elderly, fairly means without discrimination, with due regard to their physical or mental capacity, and above all with respect to their human dignity, to the positives of ageing, and to the role the now elderly have played in helping to secure the economic bounty that their children and grandchildren now enjoy."

She reports on a number of cases relevant to older people, including:

The East Coast Area Health Board refused to pay an enhanced subvention to an elderly resident of a nursing home. While she had reasonable physical health she suffered from a psychiatric condition and had been assessed as being of medium medical dependency for the purposes of nursing home subvention. The woman had no family and the full cost of the nursing home fees exceeded the combined total of her pension and the level of nursing home subvention which she was receiving, leaving a deficit which was accumulating on her behalf. The Board said its policy was to pay enhanced subvention only in respect of patients assessed as being of maximum or high dependency. (An "enhanced subvention" is a top-up payment which may be approved by the health board in addition to the subvention that the person is already receiving).

The Board said that enhanced subvention would not be considered for those residents who were assessed as being of medium dependency unless extenuating social circumstances existed. The Board was asked to reconsider this application under this category as the woman had been living in the nursing home for a number of years, had no family, and it would be unreasonable to expect her to find alternative care, particularly in view of her medical condition.

The Board agreed to provide enhanced subvention, not only in this case, but also agreed that in future cases residents who are medically assessed as being of medium dependency could be considered for enhanced subvention, depending on their extenuating social circumstances.

Individual cases reported on in Chapter Three include:

Civil Service

A farmer claimed he had been unfairly refused a Farm Improvement Grant of ?19,000 which had previously been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food.

The Department said it had initially approved the grant on the basis of the information submitted but further information had come to light which led it to believe that a grant should not, in fact, be paid and it considered that it had a legitimate basis for reversing its initial approval. From an examination of the Department's files it was clear that the Department initially had the information which would have allowed it to refuse the application but because of the interpretation made by the Department in considering the application, it was approved. Having obtained the approval, the farmer began work on the project. It was only at a later stage that the Department realised that he did not meet the criteria of the scheme and it withdrew its approval.

The withdrawal of the grant approval understandably came as a considerable shock to the farmer as he had been approved on the basis of the information he had submitted. The Department, for its part, in considering the complaint argued that while a legitimate expectation may possibly have been created by contacts between the farmer and officials of the Department, the simple fact was that the farmer was ineligible on closer scrutiny of his application.

It was clear to the Ombudsman that a legitimate expectation had been created which had led the applicant to carry out works in the belief that a grant was being paid. The Department agreed to pay grant of ?19,000.

Health Boards (now the Health Service Executive)

An elderly woman was refused nursing home subvention by the North Eastern Health Board on the grounds that it had insufficient funding to pay the subvention. The elderly woman, along with several other elderly applicants, had been placed on the Board's waiting list, pending availability of additional resources. Nursing home subvention is a statutory entitlement and the non-payment was causing severe financial hardship to the woman and her family, as it meant that they had to bear full nursing home costs themselves. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Board pressed for and received additional funding from the Department of Health and Children, but this additional funding (?52,000) only allowed the elderly woman and the other applicants on the waiting list to receive nursing home subvention from a current date, with no prospect of arrears.

The Nursing Home Regulations provide that a "Health Board shall inform the applicant in writing within eight weeks of the receipt of the application, or, if all the information sought has not been provided with the application, within eight weeks of the receipt of the information requested, of its decision whether or not to pay a subvention to the person to whom the application refers and the amount of any subvention to be paid."

Some health boards interpreted this provision as permission to withhold nursing home subvention for an eight week period following receipt of an application. However, the Ombudsman interprets the legislation to mean that health boards are allowed an eight week timeframe to determine an application, and once the assessment has been completed, nursing home subvention is payable from the date of application (or from the date the person is admitted to the nursing home, whichever is the later).

Following the Ombudsman's intervention the Board agreed to pay arrears not only to the complainant, but to the other eighteen applicants from the Cavan/Monaghan area whose subvention arrears had also been withheld. The cost of the arrears amounted to ?34,000.

Local Authorities

A complaint against Wexford County Council concerned the adequacy of the information it provided to a man who wished to object to An Bord Pleanála (ABP) regarding a planning decision made by the Council.

He lodged an objection to a planning application and when permission for the development was granted by the Council, he lodged an appeal to ABP. This appeal was rejected as invalid as he had omitted to enclose the receipt received from the Council as proof that he had previously submitted an objection. The explanatory notes provided to him by the Council, when informing him of its decision on the planning application, listed the items which should accompany an appeal to ABP, but did not mention the requirement to include the acknowledgement slip issued by the Council.

The Council said a letter had issued to the objector acknowledging receipt of the objection and advising him that the letter and receipt should be retained as they would be needed in the event of an appeal to ABP. The Council subsequently notified the objector of the decision on the planning application and took the view that he already had been advised that the acknowledgement and receipt of objection would be required in the event of his lodging an appeal to ABP.

The Ombudsman felt that the explanatory notes issued by the Council, which included a checklist of items to be included in an appeal to ABP, should also refer to the acknowledgement receipt in this list. As a result, the Council amended its explanatory notes and its letter of notification of planning decisions.

Statistics: Chapter 5

Emily O' Reilly received a total of 2,064 valid complaints during 2004 compared to 2,213 complaints in 2003. In addition to actual complaints, Ombudsman staff also dealt with 8,774 enquiries from members of the public. Between valid and invalid complaints and enquiries, almost 11,000 people contacted the Ombudsman's Office during 2004.

Adding on complaints carried forward from 2003, which totalled 814, the Office had 2,878 valid complaints on hands for 2004.

Of the 2,090 complaints concluded in 2004: 311 (14.9%) were resolved; 35 (1.7%) were partially resolved and in 417 (20%) cases assistance was provided. In effect, 37% of complainants were better off as a result of having contacted the Ombudsman. As regards the distribution by sector of valid complaints received, 43.3% related to civil service departments and offices, 36.3% involved local authorities, 17.5% related to health boards, and 3% to An Post.

--------------------

The Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004 is available in pdf and html formats.

Website: www.gov.ie/ombudsman/

Further Information: Tom Morgan at 01-6395600, Fax 01-6395674, e-mail: tom_morgan@ombudsman.gov.ie

Note for Editors:

What is the Ombudsman's Role?

The Ombudsman investigates complaints from members of the public who feel they have been unfairly treated by certain public bodies. Her Office is impartial and completely independent of Government. If she finds a complaint justified she may recommend appropriate redress.

What Can the Ombudsman Do?

The Ombudsman has extensive powers in law. She can demand any information, document or file from a body complained of and can require any official to give information about a complaint. She can look into all administrative actions including:

  • decisions

  • refusal or failure to act

  • administrative procedures

Who Can Complain and How?

Any individual, public representative, company, or organisation can make a complaint. Complaints can be made in writing, by telephone, fax or email, or by calling to the Ombudsman's Office.

Which Public Bodies are Subject to Investigation?

  • Government Departments and Offices

  • Local Authorities (County Councils, City Councils etc.)

  • Health Boards

  • An Post

When Should You Complain?

Before you contact the Ombudsman you must first try and solve your problem with the public body concerned. If you fail to resolve your problem and feel that the public body has not treated you fairly, contact the Ombudsman. When making a complaint try to give as much information as possible including any copies of letters and reference numbers.

What Will it Cost?

Nothing. There is no charge for dealing with complaints.

How Will the Ombudsman Deal With Your Complaint?

The Ombudsman's staff will screen the complaint to see if it falls within her remit and whether there is a basis to take it up with the public body. In the majority of cases complaints are resolved satisfactorily in a very informal way, for example, by discussing the problem with the public body or by examining the relevant files. In the more complex cases a formal investigation may be required.

If the Ombudsman finds that your complaint is wholly or partially justified, she will report this to the public body concerned. She may recommend that it should review its action, change its decision, or offer some form of appropriate redress.

Will the Recommendation of the Ombudsman be Accepted?

The Ombudsman has no power to force a body to accept or act upon her recommendation. If it does not, she may find it necessary to report on the matter to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Are There Areas That the Ombudsman Cannot Investigate?

Yes, she cannot investigate:

  • the actions of private companies or individuals, private practitioners, dentists, opticians, pharmacists, etc.;

  • actions taken in connection with clinical judgement by doctors;

  • the "reserved functions of Local Authorities", for example, those functions exercised by elected members of local authorities;

  • complaints relating to recruitment, pay and conditions of employment;

  • court decisions, matters which are already the subject of court proceedings, the actions of the Gardaí or actions taken in the running of the prisons;

  • where there is a right of an appeal to an independent tribunal or appeal body such as the Appeal Commissioners of Income Tax.

List of Special Reports on Systemic Issues Published by the Office of the Ombudsman

Back to contents