• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Case Digests

Case Digests

Chapter 9 - Public Bodies - Duty to Provide Information to People about their Services

Chapter Nine

Public Bodies - Duty to Provide Information to People about their Services

Over the years, based on experience in dealing with cases, the Ombudsman has established a number of basic principles which his Office applies when investigating complaints. For instance, the Office applies the broad principle that public bodies have a duty to supply people with relevant and easily understandable information about their schemes and services. In some instances, this duty can be quite far-reaching, as the following case demonstrates.

Mid-Western Health Board - Claim for Arrears of Mobility Allowance

A woman complained about the refusal by the Mid Western Health Board (MWHB) of her application, on behalf of her daughter, for arrears of Mobility Allowance.

Her daughter had always been profoundly mentally and physically disabled. The complainant had heard of her daughter's possible entitlements through other parents of mentally disabled children but only discovered that the Mobility Allowance was available five years after her daughter would have become eligible on her sixteenth birthday. Her application for arrears of Mobility Allowance for this period was refused and she was told that leaflets were available at the Health Centres and that the onus was on parents to find out about these entitlements for themselves.

The complainant said that she previously had considerable professional contact with the MWHB in relation to her daughter's care and welfare. For instance, her daughter had been in receipt of Domiciliary Care Allowance since she was 3 years old and this entitlement was reviewed by the Board approximately every two years. In addition, the complainant had been in contact with the Board over a number of years in relation to the provision of day care facilities for her daughter. Despite these previous professional contacts with Board officials, the complainant was never advised of the existence of the Mobility Allowance or that her daughter might be eligible for such a payment.

A report furnished to the Office by the MWHB confirmed that it had had regular contacts with the complainant and her daughter over an eighteen year period. The Office pointed out to the Board that in a previous similar case which had arisen with the MWHB the Ombudsman had expressed the view that, where a health board was involved in the management of disabled children, personnel who had contact with the family had a responsibility to provide information on specific allowances for those with disabilities. The Office also pointed out that the Ombudsman had sent a memorandum to the Chief Executive Officers of all health boards in 1996 in relation to claims for retrospective Domiciliary Care Allowance, which dealt with the general issue of the provision of information in the light of prior professional involvement by health board staff generally. The same principle seemed to apply in the case in question.

The MHWB accepted that the principle previously established by the Office should apply in this case and agreed to grant the Mobility Allowance. In addition, an ex gratia payment was made to the complainant amounting to �1,949 based on the Mobility Allowance rates payable for the period 1994 to 1999.

Back to contents