There was a complaint against Meath County Council about the installation of a pipe across an elderly man's land.
The understanding was that the pipe was to carry surface water run-off from a public road. However, the diameter of the pipe installed was larger than specified in a 1988 wayleave agreement between the council and the landowner. The council subsequently allowed a housing development of 65 houses to connect into the larger pipe. The houses of two senior council engineers who had been involved in the negotiations surrounding the pipe's installation and the house of the developer were also connected to the pipe.
Following an investigation, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation of £30,000 be paid to the landowner. This included redress for breach of the wayleave agreement, out-of-pocket expenses, legal fees, distress and inconvenience, and breaches of administrative and planning procedures.
No evidence of impropriety by council officials was found. The Ombudsman recommended that the council put appropriate administrative procedures in place for staff who are dealing with planning and infrastructure projects where a potential exists for a conflict of interest. The council accepted his recommendation.
Poor standard of care for nursing home resident
THE Ombudsman received a complaint from a woman about the inadequacy of an investigation conducted by the MidWestern Health Board into the care given to her late mother. The mother was resident in a nursing home in the weeks before her death.
Her daughter claimed the conclusions drawn by the board, together with a statement of outcome which had been issued to her, were inconsistent with the facts.
She was unhappy with the treatment of her allegation that a catheter which was attached to her mother had been kinked over 48 hours prior to her death. She also rejected a claim by the board's investigating team that her mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease.
The Ombudsman found that there was evidence the investigation carried out by the board was "inadequate and thus contrary to fair or sound investigation". The board accepted the observations and arranged for a second inspection by a team from another community care area.
This team found no evidence to support the diagnosis of Alzheimer's and made a number of recommendations requiring the nursing home to draw up procedures in relation to catheter management, the prevention of pressure sores and the administration of medical procedures. It was clear that the evidence upon which this team based its conclusion was available to those involved in the first investigation.
The Ombudsman asked the board to consider redress in the form of an ex gratia payment and it agreed to pay £750 to the complainant.
Eligibility for contributory old-age pension
A complainant was awarded a non-contributory old-age pension of £72.50 per week from May 1999 but had claimed he was entitled to a contributory old-age pension.
The man, now 80, first applied for the contributory pension on November 18th, 1986. The claim was refused by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs because his yearly contribution average was only 16 per year over the period 1962 to 1986 and at the time a yearly average of 20 contributions was required. This was subsequently reduced in November 1997. However, the complainant was told he still did not qualify, as his paid contributions totalled 205 when 260 were required.
When the Ombudsman examined the records he found these contained additional credited contributions from 1973 to 1985/86 not previously included in the record obtained by the Department's pension services office. The Department recalculated the complainant's contribution record and this resulted in a yearly average of 44.
As a result, the Department awarded a retirement pension, payable from the complainant's 65th birthday, and he was awarded a contributory old-age pension from his 66th birthday. Total arrears came to £73,875, of which £61,588 were arrears and £12,287 was compensation for lost purchasing power.
The result was "very gratifying", according to the Ombudsman.
Provision of escort for special-needs pupil
A mother had to transport her autistic son to school for a year - a round trip of 92 miles - as the school was unwilling to take responsibility for employing an escort and Bus Eireann could not take the boy if he was unescorted. The Department provides funding to schools for escorts but some schools have been unwilling to operate the scheme.
The Department of Education and Science initially provided a grant of £7.54 per day towards the cost of her transport when her son began to attend school in September 1999. She appealed and was awarded £46 per day. The complainant regarded this as an interim measure subject to resolving the difficulties with the provision of escorts on the bus. She also complained that their son had to leave school an hour early each day as she had to collect her daughter from another school.
The board of management of the school informed the Department it was not willing to take on the administrative duties involved and was concerned about possible legal implications. Following negotiations, the Department met a delegation from the school in May 2000 to discuss the issues. The board of management agreed to reconsider its position and, in September 2000, agreed to engage escorts for the bus service.
While the conclusion was satisfactory, the Ombudsman was concerned that the process took a year, during which the complainant had to travel long distances each day to ensure her son received the education to which he was entitled. "The issues raised by the school in regard to the administration of the scheme, liability, health and safety issues are of a nature which could have been adequately foreseen and dealt with at the time the grant was initially provided to the school."