Date released: 01.07.2010
Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly releases her Annual Report for year 2009
- Describes hospital treatment complaints profiled in report as “shocking and unacceptable”
- A record 2,873 complaints made to her Office in 2009 - the highest number recorded in over 10 years.
- 9,913 enquiries made to her Office- up 4.4% on 2008.
- 1,077 complaints made in 2009 were outside her jurisdiction - a fall of 6.5% when compared with 2008.
Percentage pattern of complaints against individual public bodies:
Civil Service - accounted for 41.9%, up 2.8% on 2008,
Local Authorities - accounted for 30%, down 0.1% on 2008,
HSE - accounted for 26.3%, down 1.2% on 2008,
An Post - accounted for 1.6%, down 1.7% on 2008.
Complaints management (complaints and enquiries) - see chapter 2.1.
The Annual Report, published today, details Ombudsman Emily O´Reilly’s success in helping thousands of people in the year 2009, all of whom had felt that they had been treated badly or unfairly by public bodies.
Citing the increase in complaints made to her Office in 2009 as compared to 2008, the Ombudsman said that the 2,873 complaints received last year was the highest recorded in over ten years.
"While the 2008 number of complaints (2,787) was a record ten-year high, the additional 86 completed valid complaints made to my Office in 2009 underlines the fact that significant numbers of people continue to have problems with the public service bodies and badly need our help and the free service the taxpayer pays for us to provide. The fact that complaint numbers continue to grow, year on year, underlines the task before us to raise standards of public service across the board." said the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman also noted an upward trend in the number of enquiries dealt with by her Office, rising by 4.4% to 9,913 in 2009.
“Just because someone contacts my Office with a problem outside of my remit does not mean that we can’t advise people and guide them in the right direction. Where we can, my staff will suggest other suitable mediation services depending on the problem. Increasingly, we get enquiries outside of our jurisdiction which other Ombudsmen and agencies can help with, especially relating to financial and pensions matters”, she added.
Raising awareness of our service among people with disabilities
Approaches were made to the Ombudsman’s Office in 2009 by people active in the disability sector, including the Deaf Society, about information awareness as to how the Office can better help people with disabilities. The Ombudsman felt that a special initiative was needed to tackle the issue. Commenting, the Ombudsman said,
“ I decided last year that we needed to make a special effort to get our message across to people with disabilities and to raise their awareness about our service and that of their national representative bodies. One particular initiative was to commission an information DVD and website presentation, with the assistance and guidance of the National Disability Authority, on our work and to explain how people can easily access our free mediation services, if they have a problem with a public body. The DVD is bespoke designed to cater for varying access needs, such as for people who are blind, visually impaired, hard of hearing or functionally deaf. It includes facilities such as lip-reading, sign language and subtitles”.
Copies are available free from my Office, or the DVD can be viewed on the website at www.ombudsman.ie.
Twenty-Sixth Ombudsman Annual Report.
This is Emily O’Reilly's seventh Annual Report as Ombudsman and the twenty-sixth since the Office of the Ombudsman, the first one in the State, was established back in 1984. Commenting on the 2009 complaint cases spotlighted, Emily O’Reilly stated:
“The Ombudsman complaints service is for everyone who needs it, to use free of charge. Since 1984 we have helped nearly 73,000 people with valid complaints - It is a proud record of achievement.
The work of the Ombudsman centres on investigating individual complaints fairly and impartially, helping people and raising standards of public service. A lot of the 2009 cases involved complaints from people from the broad spectrum of society who came to my Office for help when they were unhappy with their treatment by public bodies or the decisions or inaction of particular bodies. Some found themselves in desperate situations and were badly let down by the system. People came to me who were ill, or had relatives who were ill and needed care. Other complaints involved carers, pensioners, widowers, respite care patients and a woman suffering neglectful maternity care. One from a woman complaining about the care and treatment of her terminally-ill husband was especially distressing as was a complaint where I found that patients were experiencing disturbing ongoing and major deficiencies in hospital conditions at a public midlands area psychiatric hospital.
I can only describe these cases, particularly in the social services and public healthcare services areas, as shocking and unacceptable. I make no apology in publicising them, with the full permission of my complainants (whose identities have been protected), in the hope that the system will respond and take action to prevent recurrences. Thankfully, for some, the outcomes we brought about generated welcome systemic change and improvements, vindicating the permission of my complainants for me to go public.
While the hospital treatment cases profiled are shocking, let me also acknowledge that they represent only a very small proportion of all public interactions with the HSE. While deciding and commenting on poor or unacceptable administration is my main function, I am happy to point out that most people do not have cause for complaint about the actions of the HSE, or indeed, any other public body.”
Following are summarised examples of cases completed in 2009, illustrating the type of complaints we deal with and the outcomes we achieved. They all demonstrate the value of oversight and the tangible benefits delivered by way of redress or remedy for the complainants involved:
Social Services and Public Healthcare Cases – Chapter 4 of the Annual Report
Cases related to the Department of Social and Family Affairs - Chapter 4.1
Delay by General Register Office in amending child’s birth certificate to include natural father’s name.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.1
Department of Social and Family Affairs makes an ex-gratia payment of €2,500 to a separated man.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.2
A mother, working full-time and caring for her son on a full-time basis, loses out on a respite care grant.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.3
Decision not to grant State Pension (Contributory) reversed and arrears of €30,420 paid.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.4
Widower gets €35,530 backpayment of pension arrears.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.5
Carer’s Benefit refusal decision reversed and arrears of €12,000 paid by Department.
See chapter 4 - case 4.1.6
Cases related to the Health Service Executive (HSE) - Chapter 4.2
Decision not to grant a Domiciliary Care Allowance and Carer’s Allowance for a child with sickle cell disease reversed. Arrears of almost €18,000 paid.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.1
Woman suffering from eating disorder gets decision by HSE not to fund in full her treatment costs reversed.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.2
Maternity care at Waterford hospital neglectful - Woman given apology, counselling and ex-gratia payment of €1,000.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.3
Wife complains about standard of care and treatment of her terminally ill husband in Tullamore hospital. Hospital addresses systemic failures.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.4
Poor treatment of respite care patient at Wexford hospital. Stayed in bed, as no suitable seating available and arrived home badly bruised.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.5
Daughter’s complaint about the treatment of her cancer patient father – hospital apologises and introduces new procedures.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.6
Major deficiencies in psychiatric hospital conditions.
See chapter 4 - case 4.2.7
Local Authorities; Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Cases - Chapter 5 of the Annual Report
Public servant caught in stalled decentralisation process. Must pay €200 annual charge for owners of non-principal private residences – anomaly highlighted.
See chapter 5 - case 5.1
€3,000 paid by Council for incorrect registration of house with Land Registry.
See chapter 5 - case 5.2
Tenancy offer to woman by Galway County Council withdrawn due to alleged anti-social behaviour – Ombudsman investigation results in new tenancy offer.
See chapter 5 - case 5.3
Civil Service Cases - Chapter 6 of the Annual Report
Ombudsman Co-operation on complaints against North-South Implementation bodies.
See chapter 6 - case 6.1
Unfair income tax deduction rule for tenants of non-resident landlords. Highlighted first in 1998.
See chapter 6 - case 6.2
Lost at Scheme Report
“For the Institution of the Ombudsman, the Report on the Lost at Sea Scheme which I published and submitted to each House of the Oireachtas in December last, may turn out to be a pivotal juncture in the relationship between my Office and the Oireachtas. This is the reason I felt it that it would be remiss of me to leave the matter to my next Annual Report and I decided therefore to make a brief commentary in my introductory Chapter 1 on the Report and the state of play, as I write. As is well known, this Special Report to the Oireachtas, followed from a decision of a government department responsible for fisheries, to reject my findings in an Investigation Report including a recommendation for financial compensation. This happened only once before, in 2002. In that case, involving complaints against the Revenue Commissioners, the matter was successfully resolved with the assistance and support of the Oireachtas.
I was pleased to be afforded the opportunity to present my case before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in April last. I look forward to its report and recommendations in due course ".
Child Welfare and Protection Services
This year’s Report includes a chapter on Child Welfare and Protection services (Chapter 2.9 ). I felt it would be timely to clarify the separate and discrete roles of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Children's Ombudsman and the collaborative working arrangements we have in place, as needed, when child welfare cases arise. Essentially, the distinction is that, where an adverse affect is to the child it falls under the remit of the Ombudsman for Children and where the adverse affect is to an adult it comes under my jurisdiction. Where it affects both, we work together under agreed procedures.
I have given details of four cases examined by my Office in the area of Child Welfare and Protection services by way of illustration of the work we do in the sector.
Case 1
Complaint about the way the HSE handled a man’s complaint against social workers.
Case 2
Complaint by grandfather fostering his three grandchildren, about the poor handover of case arrangement responsibilities between HSE Regions.
Case 3
Complaint by mother about the HSE handling of an unfounded child abuse complaints against her.
Case 4
Complaint by a Midlands crèche that HSE had failed to communicate to it that a complaint against the crèche centring on child protection issues, after examination, was deemed not to stand up.