• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2005

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2005

Chapter 4: The Year in Review

During 2005 my Office continued its efforts to bring our services to the general public throughout the country

BUSINESS PLANNING ACTIVITY IN 2005

Case Management

We completed 2,193 cases in 2005 and dealt with 9,704 enquiries. We set an end of year target for cases on hand at no greater than 788, which was the number carried forward from 2004, while ensuring that older cases were prioritised for closure. The target set was based on an assumption that intake of cases during the year would be on a par with 2004. 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 2005 there were 838 cases on hand. Overall complaints received in 2005 showed an increase of almost 9% compared to 2004. At the end of the year the number of cases which were over one year old stood at 197. The overall outcome in relation to meeting our targets was satisfactory.

During the year we continued to sample individual complaint files by reference to a set of agreed quality indicators (e.g. time taken to acknowledge a complaint, keeping the complainant informed of progress, communicating clearly and simply etc.). A group of caseworkers with an independent chair, known as the Review Group on Case Quality does the sampling work. It reports to the MAC on the extent to which the quality indicators have been met in individual complaint files sampled. In 2006 we plan to refine the work of the Review Group in response to the results of our Survey of Complainant Satisfaction Levels (see below).

Better Financial Management and Accountability

Consistent with the requirements of the Public Sector Modernisation Programme, the Office’s financial management system supports cash-based and accrual accounting. It also provides for the development of management information and output measures in order to support better management of resources. In this regard, a range of performance indicators were developed during 2005 which are aligned with the high level goals set out in the Office’s Statement of Strategy 2004-2006.

At this stage, all the recommendations of the Report of the Working Group on the Accountability of Secretaries General and Accounting Officers (known as the Mullarkey Report) have been implemented. An Audit Committee which includes a number of external members, meets regularly to provide support to the Accounting Officer (i.e. the Director General of the Office) who has responsibility for the proper management of the resources of the Office. In addition, both the Financial and Non-Financial Risk Registers are reviewed (and amended as necessary) on a quarterly basis.

Client Service Charter

In 2004 a draft Client Service Charter - setting out the standards expected in dealing with people who use the services of the Office of the Ombudsman - was drawn up. During the year, following consultation with clients and staff, a Client Service Charter was finalised and published. It is available on my Office’s website [www.ombudsman.ie].

Survey of Complainant Satisfaction Levels

I firmly believe that my Office should provide a structured approach to meaningful consultation with, and participation by, the members of the public who avail of the services provided by the Office in relation to the development, delivery and review of those same services. By obtaining these views the Office can better understand their needs and expectations and therefore ensure that our services reflect, and are responsive to, these needs.

My Office’s Statement of Strategy 2004 - 2006 outlines the high level goals which drive the delivery of our services. These include the delivery of a high quality service that is efficient, easily accessible, and that produces clear and fair decisions. Actions supporting these goals include the introduction of additional client feedback mechanisms. It is in this context that my Office undertook a major initiative in 2005 in the area of customer feedback.

The initiative encompassed a postal survey of all complainants who had their cases finalised by the 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 nationwide basis, in which the issues identified in the survey responses were teased out in greater detail.

The results show a consistent correlation between satisfaction with service, and satisfaction with outcome of investigation. e.g. 95% of those who were satisfied with the outcome of their investigation were satisfied with the overall service provided by the Office, compared with just 35% of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their investigation. This pattern was found to persist when all aspects of service were examined. Of considerable importance to me were the very high satisfaction ratings expressed in relation to the staff of my Office, Politeness 89%, Professionalism 82%, Helpful 75 %, Efficient 73%, and Empathetic 63%. Three 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 investigation process; and more information during the investigation about how it 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 investigation process; the level of personal contact with complainants; and the quality of explanation of final decisions. We are currently engaged in a review of our complaint examination practices and procedures and, to the greatest extent possible, we will take on board these suggestions for improvement.

Following on from this we now plan to issue a comment card to every complainant, following the finalisation of their complaint. The comment card will seek their views on how well we have performed on seven key service indicators which have been developed from the 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. It is my intention to report on the outcome of this process in future annual reports.

Internal Customer Service

As my Office expands and becomes a more complex organisation we not only strive to maintain high standards of service to all our clients but also to ensure that the quality of service and support we provide internally to our work colleagues is of the highest standard.

Among the projects undertaken by working groups drawn from middle management grades in the Office was a survey of internal customer service standards. Arising from this, the group proposed a set of principles to govern dealings between staff themselves - covering such areas as courtesy and timeliness in dealing with colleagues whether in meetings, phone calls or email. This Internal Customer Service Protocol has been approved by both the management and partnership committees and is now in place.

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 initia-tives;
• 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 on a bi-annual basis. The Group also gender proofs relevant new Office policies, promotes awareness of gender equality and work/life balance and monitors the Office’s gender targets applying to grades at Executive Officer and above.

Website Upgrades

In December, 2005, re-designed websites of the Offices of the Ombudsman, Information Commissioner and the Standards in Public Office Commission Secretariat were launched. The improved sites were re-designed specifically to ensure enhanced access for all users and the provision of a quality on-line service for clients.

All sites are designed to meet the highest accessibility standards (AAA format) while selected sites offer both on-line application and payment of fees, where appropriate. In addition, the operating system allows the sites to be updated daily to ensure the provision of consistently up to date information for all the Office’s clients.

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 2005 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.

The Official Languages Act 2003

The Official Languages Act 2003, the provisions of which are being put into effect on a phased basis since July 2003, seeks to ensure better availability and a higher standard of public services through Irish.

Under the Act there is a requirement on a public body to draw up and publish a scheme in which it sets out the details of its delivery of services in Irish as well as a timetable for the progressive enhancement of those services. Such schemes, provided for at section 11 of the Act, must be approved by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The Office of the Ombudsman was among the first group of public bodies selected by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to draft schemes in the first round of this process. My Office’s scheme was approved by the Minister during the year and commenced on 1 July 2005. The scheme is published on our website [www.ombudsman.ie].

Ombudsman Link Service

The Ombudsman Link Service is a new service which was introduced by my Office in early 2006. With the assistance of the Citizens Information Services in certain areas, the new service allows members of the public easier access to the services of my Office.

For over ten years we have been providing a service for one day per month at the Citizens Information Centres in Cork, Limerick and Galway. The attendance at these centres by staff from my Office afforded members of the public from these areas the opportunity to meet with my staff and explain the details of their complaints in person. Since these monthly visits began, over 5,000 people have been catered for at these outlets.

The Ombudsman Link Service builds on the existing monthly services by enabling people to call into Citizens Information Centres at any time to make a complaint to my Office. During 2005 my Office provided the participating centres with signage, information leaflets and user-friendly complaint forms and the staff and volunteers of the centres have received special training from my Office so that they can assist members of the public in making their complaints. The training will also enable the centres to identify matters that their clients raise with them which can be referred as complaints to the Ombudsman.

At present, the Ombudsman Link Service is available at the following Citizens Information Centres:

Cork Citizens Information Centre, 80 South Mall, Cork

Blackrock Citizens Information Centre, Convent Road, Blackrock, Cork

Limerick Citizens Information Centre, 54 Catherine Street, Limerick

Newcastlewest Citizens Information Centre, Weight House, Market Yard, Newcastlewest, County Limerick

Galway Citizens Information Centre, Augustine House, St. Augustine Street, Galway

Clifden Citizens Information Centre, c/o VEC, Statoil Apartments, 4/5 Galway Road, Clifden

Northside Citizens Information Centre, Northside Civic Centre, Bunratty Road, Coolock, Dublin 17.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

The Government has approved the Heads of an Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. The Government also indicated its intention to publish the text of this Bill by mid 2006. 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. These proposals will have considerable resource implications for my Office.

Notices issued under Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980

If there is a significant 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:

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

The table below shows a breakdown of the Section 7 notices issued in 2005

Body	No. of Section 7 Notices
Civil Service
An Post	2
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources	1
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government	1
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform	1
Health Boards
HSE - East Coast Area	3
HSE - South Western Area	1
Local Authorities
Galway County Council	8
Kildare County Council	12
Limerick County Council	2
Total	31

I am most disappointed to see a reversal of the positive trend in terms of the number of Section 7 Notices my Office had to issue in 2005 compared to previous years. This is the highest total since 1998, which was the first time my Office published these figures. It is important that public bodies provide the fullest co-operation with my Office during the complaint examination process. Excessive delays only serve to compound the sense of grievance felt by complainants.

The problems in relation to Kildare County Council arose mainly in the planning area and related to difficulties experienced in obtaining reports on complaints referred to the Council. Long and unnecessary delays were encountered which meant that cases could not be progressed within a reasonable length of time. While my officials met with the County Manager in 2003 in the course of which he explained that a new tracking system was being put in place which would help to speed up the processing of complaints, little improvement has been observed in that regard. I understand that changes have been made recently in the planning area which, I am informed, should improve matters.

Public Access and Awareness

During 2005 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 2005 my staff carried out monthly visits to a number of Citizens Information Centres (CICs) and there were also one-day regional visits to four other locations.

In 2005 the CIC visits were to Cork, Galway, Limerick and Coolock. A total of 276 new complaints were received during these CIC visits of which 176 were valid and 100 (or 36%) were invalid. We rely on the valuable support of the CICs in delivering this service.

Staff from my Office also made one-day visits to Cavan, Letterkenny, Tralee and Wexford. Staff met 317 callers during these visits and 233 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 409. Details of the 2006 programme of visits are available from my Office’s website [www.ombudsman.ie].

ISSUES ARISING FROM INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS

Office of the Revenue Commissioners - Refusal to Refund Overpaid Tax

Two taxpayers, through their agent, complained that the Revenue Commissioners (the Revenue) had refused to make refunds to them arising from overpayments of income tax paid in respect of the tax years 1998/99 and 1999/00. The taxpayers, primarily PAYE taxpayers, were involved in a partnership concerned with filmmaking. They filed trading losses in relation to the project for the tax-years in question and the relevant assessments were issued in January 2000 showing the losses claimed. However, the tax refunds in relation to the film losses were not dealt with by the Revenue. The taxpayers concerned complained to me that Revenue’s actions amounted to inequitable and discriminatory behaviour in relation to PAYE taxpayers and objected to the long delay in having the matter clarified. This claim was made in the context that self assessed taxpayers involved in similar projects could have assessed their liabilities and made their tax returns, taking trading losses into account.

The Revenue argued that the partnership in question was one of a number (105), that had been structured in a way which constituted aggressive and unacceptable tax avoidance. The Revenue refused to repay the overpayments on the basis that the arrangements were being challenged and that no payments would be made until the issues had been resolved. Revenue’s challenge to the scheme was upheld by the Appeal Commissioners and the Circuit Court and the decision of the Circuit Court is currently under appeal to the High Court.

When approached by my Office the Revenue stated that the technical complexity of the issues involved had resulted in exceptional delays in progressing the challenge. However, having reviewed the case at my request, the Revenue found that, having decided initially not to make the repayments, an avenue of appeal should have been made available to the taxpayers at that time. In the circumstances and given the difficulty in predicting when the case would be resolved, the Revenue agreed to repay the overpayments in question and to pay statutory interest from a date six months after the tax returns claiming the relief were filed.

It continues to be the Revenue position that the transactions involved in this case constitute unacceptable tax avoidance, and if the decision of the Circuit Court is upheld in the High Court, steps will be taken to recover the amounts repaid.

Following the resolution of this case, my Office has received an additional 27 complaints from taxpayers in similar circumstances. These taxpayers have been advised to contact the Revenue in the first instance to resolve their difficulties. However, I am prepared to pursue these complaints on their behalf, if they do not receive satisfaction themselves.

Charges for Photocopying Planning Documents

As a result of my concerns about the level of fees being charged by local authorities for photocopying extracts from planning files, as outlined in page 30 of my 2004 Annual Report, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued guidelines on the matter to all planning authorities in August 2005.

My Office recently carried out a telephone survey of 30 local authorities countrywide in order to establish whether they had reviewed their charges in light of these guidelines. This survey showed that some local authorities have reduced their fees as a result of these guidelines, others decided that the fees being charged by them are reasonable and have made no amendments and some appear to be unaware of the Department’s guidelines.

In August 2005 I received a complaint against Mayo County Council about the level of fees it was charging for photocopies from its planning files. My complainant was charged €1 for a photocopy of an A4 sheet. I asked the Council to review its charges. In doing so I drew its attention to the fact that its neighbouring Councils, Galway and Roscommon, charge €0.15 for photocopying one A4 sheet. In addition, I pointed out that the Council’s own public library in Castlebar charges €0.15 to photocopy one A4 page. In response, the Council carried out a review of its photocopying charges and agreed to reduce its charges to €0.10 per A4 sheet, a reduction of 90% on the earlier charge. I considered the Council’s revised charges reasonable. I had hoped I would not have to revisit this issue again in future Annual Reports. However, I have recently received some further complaints against other local authorities. Rather than deal with these on a case by case basis, I may decide to request details from all local authorities as to the amount of fees being charged and the criteria used in calculating charges, with a view to publishing the results when they become available.

Back to contents