Northern Ireland

Ombudsman

News Release                                                     

– embargoed until 00.01hrs, Friday 21 July 2006

Northern Ireland Ombudsman publishes Annual Report

The 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman, Mr Tom Frawley, was laid before Parliament at Westminster yesterday.

Complaints can make a difference

In his introduction to the report Tom Frawley challenges public bodies to examine how they view complaints and how they respond to them.

“My report reflects the fact that I continue to receive complaints about the full spectrum of the public services in Northern Ireland.  Complaints offer an insight into how well our public services are delivering their services to the people to whom they owe their very existence – individual citizens. 

“In some cases, the complaints were unproven, but in others they revealed real failings in service, and provided an opportunity to put things right, not only for the benefit of the individual complainant but also for other users of that service.

The Ombudsman added “From experience, I can say that where public services take a systemic approach to the investigation and management of complaints the opportunity to make real improvements is far greater.  I would encourage all public bodies to take this on board.”

The challenges of the Review of Public Administration

The Ombudsman goes on to point to the challenges of the recently completed Review of Public Administration.

/ continued…

“The implementation of the RPA will bring with it a number of significant challenges for the public service.  Not least among these will be the challenge of continuing the delivery of existing services at the same time as organisations and structures are being altered and changed.  It is critical that the essential needs of citizens are not neglected during this time of major change and transition.

Key to this will be the development and implementation of effective complaints procedures.  I hope that the cases outlined in my report will serve to inform that work and would therefore commend it to all who work within the public service.”

The Ombudsman provides a free service dealing with complaints from people who claim to have suffered injustice because of maladministration by government departments and public bodies in Northern Ireland.  He is independent of the Assembly and of the government departments and public bodies which he has the power to investigate. 

The Northern Ireland Ombudsman is the popular name for two offices – the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. 

Complaints submitted to the Ombudsman covered the full spectrum of the public services in Northern Ireland.

Examples of Complaints and Investigations:

The Report contains summaries of a range of complaints investigated by the Ombudsman during the year.  A number of case summaries, and selected comments by the Ombudsman on the three areas upon which most complaints are received – housing, health and planning – are summarised in the annex below. 

Notes:

·        This is Tom Frawley’s sixth Annual Report as Ombudsman.

·        Copies of the Report are available on the Ombudsman’s website (www.ni-ombudsman.org.uk) or from the Stationery Office, Arthur Street, Belfast.

Ends.

Annex

Planning Complaints

One of the Planning complaints investigated (see page 30):

The complainant in this case stated that she was denied the opportunity to have her objections considered by the Planning Service (PS) in relation to the processing of a two-storey extension to her neighbour’s property.  She complained that the extension made her downstairs bathroom gloomy and created an unsightly view of a solid brick wall five feet from her first floor bedroom window with a resulting reduction in light.  She also complained about the way in which the PS dealt with her correspondence about the case.

The Ombudsman’s investigation established the following:

·        That the complainant had to wait four weeks for an appointment to the view the plans for her neighbour’s extension at the local Council offices. 

·        That within days of that appointment, and before she had the opportunity to submit her objections, PS issued planning approval.

·        That the PS did document its consideration of the impact on the downstairs bathroom, but did not record the existence of the first floor window or the impact the extension would have on the bedroom.

The Ombudsman concluded the following:

·        That PS’s decision was made on the basis of seriously inadequate information;

·        That the decision had a serious detrimental effect on the complainant’s enjoyment of her home;

·        That the PS’s response to the correspondence in relation to the case was poor;

·        That the PS’s deficient consideration of the impact of the extension was a serious failing which constituted maladministration.

The Ombudsman therefore recommended the following:

·        That the Chief Executive issue a letter of apology to the complainant;

·        That the complainant receive a consolatory payment of £7,000;

·        That PS prepare a system of recording planning decisions which demonstrates clearly how competing rights and interests of planning applicants and their neighbours have been taken into account.

As a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation:

·        He concluded that this aspect of planning policy required an immediate review and raised this issue with the PS. The PS has since informed the Ombudsman that their draft business plan for the 2006/07 year will include a commitment to consult on a revised policy on residential extensions / alterations.

Ombudsman’s general comment on Planning complaints:

“I wish to acknowledge the PS’s recognition of the requirement for more detailed documentation to enhance the transparency of the planning decision-making process as a consequence of my investigations of planning complaints during the reporting period. I therefore welcome the seriousness of the PS’s response in issuing guidance on this important issue to planning staff, which, when implemented, will indicate more clearly the reasoning behind planning decisions.”

Housing Complaints

One of the Housing complaints investigated (see page 62):

The complainant stated that she had been required to move from her home to facilitate redevelopment.  Despite accepting a new tenancy she continued to live in her former home, with the Executive’s permission, while necessary repairs were carried out to her new home.  However, the complainant stated that she arrived at her former home to discover the door had been forced and three men, engaged by the Executive to secure the property, were inside.

The Ombudsman’s investigation established the following:

·        That when the new house was signed for the Executive terminated the tenancy of the former home, and their computer records showed that property as void;

·        That the Executive’s procedure is to check that the keys of a house which it intends to secure have been returned and that all belongings have been removed;

·        That upon discovering the presence of “past tenant” items in the property the contractors informed the Executive, but the Executive instructed them to continue to secure the house out of concern that the house may have been squatted in.  This occurred despite formal policy and procedures for dealing with persons living illegally in a property, which do not include the securing of windows and doors;

·        That the Executive refused to offer an explanation or apology for its actions until the tenant used the Executive’s Internal Complaints process.

The Ombudsman concluded the following:

·        That although there was no malicious intent on their part, the Executive’s failure to follow its normal procedure for securing homes constituted maladministration;

·        That the action caused the tenant a great deal of upset and distress;

·        That the instruction to proceed with the securing of windows and doors constituted a further example of maladministration;

·        That the Executive’s refusal to offer an apology without first receiving a formal complaint again represented less than satisfactory administration;

·        That the level of service the complainant received under the Internal Complaints process fell well short of what the public are entitled to expect.

The Ombudsman therefore recommended, and the Housing Executive agreed to, the following:

·        That all Executive staff should receive a formal policy document about the system of checks to be undertaken before arranging to have houses secured;

·        That the Chief Executive consider reminding staff about the procedures to deal with persons squatting in Executive properties;

·        That the complainant receive an apology from the Chief Executive together with a consolatory payment of £500.

Ombudsman’s general comment on Housing complaints:

“I am pleased to report that in my view the Housing Executive has made improved efforts over the last year in responding to complaints brought to me. Of particular note is the openness of the Executive to consider early settlement of complaints, where that is appropriate. This not only avoids a costly and time consuming investigation but also demonstrates a commitment by the Executive to put things right. During the year 19 housing cases were settled in this way.”

Health and Social Services Complaints

One of the Health and Social Services complaints investigated (see page 82):

This complaint centred on the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service’ (NIAS) handling of an emergency call out in respect of the complainant’s late wife, whom the ambulance crew had refused to take to hospital despite repeated requests from him.  He felt that the crew had failed to appreciate that his wife had been too confused to properly understand their advice that she should go with them to hospital.  The Ombudsman’s investigation focused on the issue of consent and the legal position of a patient’s right to determine what happens to them. 

The Ombudsman’s investigation established that:

·        That under the Reference Guide to Consent for Examination, Treatment or Care valid consent is absolutely central to all forms of healthcare;

·        That the patient’s medical records did not indicate that she did not have the capacity to take a decision not to travel to hospital;

·        That the ambulance crew spent approximately one hour trying to persuade the patient to allow them to take her to hospital.

The Ombudsman concluded the following:

·        That despite their efforts, the ambulance crew did not secure the patient’s consent to take her to hospital, and consequently did not have the legal authority to take her to hospital against her wishes;

·        That the investigation highlighted the need for a definitive ambulance service protocol on the issue of consent to care and treatment, including refusal to travel.

The Ambulance Service accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation and agreed to develop such a protocol.

Ombudsman’s general comment on Health and Social Services complaints:

“My report highlights the importance of developing and implementing effective complaints handling processes. With this in mind, I must report my frustration that another year has passed in which the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Review of Complaints Procedures has remained incomplete. The fact that such a review was undertaken in the first place is recognition of the inadequacies of the existing procedures. While there have been a number of understandable delays to this review, it is difficult to accept that a process begun in 2001 has yet to be brought to a useful conclusion.”

Ends.