THE OMBUDSMAN has expressed concern that public bodies are increasingly using their discretion to refuse access to welfare supports that were awarded to individuals in the past.
At the publication of her annual report yesterday, Emily O'Reilly said decisions to deny medical cards and domiciliary care allowance were placing huge stress on families who had come to rely on these benefits.
She said members of the public needed to be told why they were being denied benefits and, in cases which involved a medical opinion, decisions needed to be evidence-based and not simply rubber-stamped.
"In areas where there is an element of discretion or judgment on the part of decision-makers, many are using it as a way to squeeze or restrict access to benefits," she said. "It's simply not good enough . . . It's important that in dealing with people they don't add to their stress by being opaque about what they are entitled to."
While she was conscious that the public finances were under pressure, this was not an excuse to row back on people's entitlements.
"Public bodies may have less money and fewer human resources, but basic standards cannot be sacrificed," she said.
The failure to pay the domiciliary care allowance, in particular, has been a source of angst for families of children with autism and special needs. Campaign groups say thousands have lost the allowance over the past year or so.
This allowance is a monthly payment made to the parent or carer of a child with a disability who requires substantially more care and attention than another child of the same age.
In one case cited in the Ombudsman's annual report, a father was refused access to the carer's allowance for his daughter who had mental health problems and a history of suicidal behaviour.
Despite the fact that she needed constant supervision, the decision-maker found the girl was not "so invalided or disabled as to require full-time care and attention".
Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, the Department of Social Protection reversed the decision and arrears of about €10,000 were made to the father.
Overall, the Office of the Ombudsman experienced the busiest year in its 28-year history, with an increase of almost 25 per cent in the number of inquiries received.
"The ongoing effect of the economic downturn was felt yet again by my office in 2011 as record numbers of people sought our assistance," Ms O'Reilly said.
"The fact that so many people continue to need the services of the Ombudsman by reaching out for our help underlines the ongoing difficulty people have in dealing with public bodies."
There was also a surge in the number of complaints dealt with - a 38 per cent increase - by the office during 2011.
A breakdown of complaints received last year shows most complaints related to the Department of Social Protection (31 per cent), followed by local authorities (28 per cent), the HSE (24 per cent) and other Government departments (15 per cent).
Ms O'Reilly also said she was hopeful that plans to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to cover up to 100 additional public bodies - including third-level institutions, and Fás - would be progressed by the Government.
Legislation to allow for this was first proposed as far back as 1985. She said she had discussed the matter with Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin, and had been assured it was being dealt with as a priority.
While such a move would place additional pressure on the Ombudsman's office, she said reformed work practices introduced recently have resulted in a significant increase in output.
COMPLAINTS TO OMBUDSMAN SOME CASES
Nursing home charges
A Cork married couple made applications to the Health Repayment Scheme in respect of their late mothers who had lived in the same nursing home. This scheme was set up in 2006 to repay medical card holders who were illegally charged for nursing home care.
The couple completed inquiry forms issued by the HSE which they took to be formal applications.
They were refused on the grounds that they had not submitted formal applications before the scheme’s deadline.
The Ombudsman investigated the issues and argued that the inquiry form was of such detail that the complainants could reasonably have assumed it was an application form.
Following protracted discussions, the HSE agreed to accept the forms as applications. The couple later received a total of €85,441.
Unwarranted seizure of car
An Italian citizen working in Ireland had his car seized by the Revenue Commissioners for the non-payment of Vehicle Registration Tax.
The Italian citizen was working on a two-year fixed-term contract and was entitled to a temporary exemption from VRT as long as it was not driven by an Irish citizen.
The car was detained by Customs officers because the complainant’s fiancee, an Irish citizen, was sitting in the driver’s seat while the complainant was in a supermarket.
Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, the Revenue accepted it had not followed its own procedures and paid €5,300 to the complainant.
Suspicion of abuse
The parents of a seriously ill child moved their son from the children’s hospital in Crumlin as they were unhappy with the level of treatment and how they were treated by hospital staff.
Several years later they obtained their son’s medical records and found the hospital had investigated a “non-accidental injury” – a term often used for suspected physical abuse – because of internal bruising of the boy’s head.
The child had been examined and interviewed by staff without parental knowledge or consent – in contravention of official guidelines – and the parents were not given a chance to clear their good name. It later transpired there was a medical explanation for the injury.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the parents received a written apology for hurt, distress and reputational damage caused.
To make a complaint to the Ombudsman, tel: 1890-223030, or visit: ombudsman.gov.ie
