Among the cases investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman were:
1: A woman complained that the Western Health Board (WHB) had unfairly refused arrears of nursing home subvention from the date of her application.
The claim centred on how the board interpreted the Nursing Homes (Subvention) Regulations of 1993. These allowed the board to take into account the ability of an adult son or daughter of the applicant to contribute to the nursing home costs of their parent. The applicant complained that the WHB had incorrectly insisted that it was mandatory for adult children to provide information on their financial circumstances.
She also complained that her children had been misled in that they were told her application would be refused if they did not comply.
The board had in fact written to them to this effect. She said that the information supplied by them was therefore obtained under false pretences.
The Ombudsman's office concluded that the WHB had incorrectly interpreted and applied the regulations, leading to an adverse effect for the complainant, and asked it to review the level of subvention. The board did this and refunded €3,174 to the complainant.
2. A woman complained that she got a parking ticket in Drogheda for parking in a "disc only" area without a parking disc.
The woman, who was heavily pregnant and on her way to see her doctor, was a stranger to the area, there were no signs as to where a parking disc could be got, and when she went to Drogheda Corporation's office to buy one it was closed for lunch.
However, when she appealed the imposition of the fine her appeal was turned down. The corporation accepted all these facts, adding that discs could be bought in certain outlets in the town.
The Ombudsman's office suggested to the corporation that the onus was on it to provide the necessary information so that the public could buy parking discs.
It agreed to refund the cost of the fine, and to put up signs indicating where discs could be bought.
3. A couple complained to the Office of the Ombudsman about the valuation placed on their home by Bray Urban District Council, from whom they were buying it under the rental purchase scheme. The council had valued the house in 1996 at £50,000 (€63,487) and at £68,000 (€86,342) in 1998. The couple pointed out that they had made considerable improvements to the house over the years at their own expense, and that this had not been taken into account by the council in valuing it.
The office asked for the earlier valuations, and discovered that both in 1996 and in 1998 the valuer had given valuations "taking into account improvement effected by the tenant", which included "a kitchen/dining extension."
The Ombudsman said the value of this work should have been deducted from the 1998 valuation. The council then agreed to a deduction of €16,507.