How much power does the Ombudsman have?

segosego89 · 22-11-2020 7:02am #1

Apologies if this is not the correct forum but I'm not sure where else to post this.

I'm just reading about how the Ombudsman works on Citizen Information and on the Ombudsman's website itself and I was wondering could someone help me with a couple of questions about how it works? By the way I'm not talking about the Financial or the Garda Ombudsman.

Does the Ombudsman actually have that much power when it comes down to it? For example even if they side with you on a complaint that you've made against a governmental department do they actually have any power to act on the decision they've made? I've read on Citizen's Information that they can only make recommendations:

"Depending on the outcome, they may ask the provider to change its decision or offer an explanation and/or compensation. The Ombudsman can only make recommendations. Their decisions are not legally binding."

So if I made a complaint and the outcome was in my favour they basically cannot do anything really other than make a suggestion to the department in question? They are pretty much toothless?

antoinolachtnai · 23-11-2020 9:31am

Ombudsman is not a judge or a court. His authority is moral and to a degree political.

segosego89 · 23-11-2020 9:52am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Ombudsman is not a judge or a court. His authority is moral and to a degree political.

So if he finds you in favour in regards to a complaint you have made all they can do is make a recommendation to the government department in question but it's still basically at the discretion of the department on whether to act on this recommendation or not?

Esel · 23-11-2020 9:56am

Which Ombudsman are you talking about? There are a number of them as far as I know.

segosego89 · 23-11-2020 9:56am

Esel wrote: »

Which Ombudsman are you talking about? There are a number of them as far as I know.

This one shown here: https://www.ombudsman.ie/

antoinolachtnai · 23-11-2020 9:57am

segosego89 wrote: »

So if he finds you in favour in regards to a complaint you have made all they can do is make a recommendation to the government department in question but it's still basically at the discretion of the department on whether to act on this recommendation or not?

If you are asking whether the ombudsman’s recommendation is legally binding, it’s not.

segosego89 · 23-11-2020 10:01am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you are asking whether the ombudsman’s recommendation is legally binding, it’s not.

I'm just wondering why it exists in the first place if it can't enforce anything in a meaningful way. If you complained about the service you received from a particular department and the Ombudsman thinks you were totally in the right all they can do is make a recommendation of what should be done to improve the service of said department?

But whoever is in charge in this particular department can just ignore the advice that the Ombudsman provides so what is the point of the investigation taking place in the first place if it is at the discretion of whoever is in charge to completely ignore the recommendation and continue how they operate?

Lenar3556 · 23-11-2020 10:55am

segosego89 wrote: »

I'm just wondering why it exists in the first place if it can't enforce anything in a meaningful way. If you complained about the service you received from a particular department and the Ombudsman thinks you were totally in the right all they can do is make a recommendation of what should be done to improve the service of said department?

But whoever is in charge in this particular department can just ignore the advice that the Ombudsman provides so what is the point of the investigation taking place in the first place if it is at the discretion of whoever is in charge to completely ignore the recommendation and continue how they operate?

Yes - but these are public sector service providers. They will generally act in accordance with the adjudication of the ombudsman unless there are significant wider implications in doing so.

It is an independent and free service, and in my view one which is worthwhile.

I wouldn’t be too dissuaded by the fact that an adjudication is not legally binding. Given the nature of the bodies you are dealing with, that’s unlikely to be a huge issue. There are cases every day of ‘legally binding’ court orders which come to no more, as the enforcement process is not worthwhile or economically viable.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2020 1:49am

What Lenar 3556 said. If you want a legally binding ruling, go to court; that's what courts are for. The Ombudsman is cheaper and quicker, but he doesn't have the power to make legally binding rulings, partly because the people he's investigating don't have the same rights they would have in a court, and it would be unjust to subject them to sanctions and liabilities without them having the normal protections against erroneous findings, etc.

This doesn't mean that a finding from the Ombudsman is useless. It's a mistake to think that something is either legally binding or completely useless. As Lenar points out, public bodies nearly always do comply with rulings from the Ombudsman, so it is a substantially effective method of getting redress. In cases where they don't, it's nearly always because they think the Ombudsman has got it wrong, and if they are taken to court over the issue they will win.

Claw Hammer · 24-11-2020 2:18pm

The Ombudsman also has considerable powers to force publice bodies to show documents to him. This is very effective when there is a cover up by a public body. When the public body has gone wrong and is caught bang to rights when the Ombudsman gets the file, they will have to make amends.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9 · 26-11-2020 6:00am

I think it's a joke. If you complain about a body the body see what you said in your complaint.But you don't know what they ay about you.i have seen bodies lie to the ombudsman about complainants and be believed. It just give people the impression they are given independent investigation..

Hope this shows not home on phone hard to see

Peregrinus · 26-11-2020 6:16am

Ramiro Chilly Hamper wrote: »

I think it's a joke. If you complain about a body the body see what you said in your complaint.But you don't know what they ay about you.

Usually nothing. There's no complaint against you, the ombudsman isn't investigating you, he doesn't care what the body being investigated thinks about you, and the body being investigated knows this and doesn't waste their own time and his in airing their opinions about you.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9 · 26-11-2020 11:51pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Usually nothing. There's no complaint against you, the ombudsman isn't investigating you, he doesn't care what the body being investigated thinks about you, and the body being investigated knows this and doesn't waste their own time and his in airing their opinions about you.

That is not true. I have seen public bodies lie and write reprts with lies. Not of me I would not go to the Ombudsman. You think some little corrupt public servant wouldn't lie to protect himself knowing he can. There may not be a complaint about you but they will lie to get out of your complaint.It is not anyway just or fair that someone can make secret reports. The ombudsman just exists to give people the impression there is an independent complaints service

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 7:12am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The Ombudsman also has considerable powers to force publice bodies to show documents to him. This is very effective when there is a cover up by a public body. When the public body has gone wrong and is caught bang to rights when the Ombudsman gets the file, they will have to make amends.

Thanks for the helpful reply.

I originally made this thread because I was told by someone who works in a particular department that they supposedly investigated the costs of improving a service in their department after I had made a complaint about this service.
After looking into the matter, this person concluded that it was not worth the costs involved to improve the service. When I asked for details of this investigation they said it was confidential to the department.

I might be completely wrong to think this but I find it to be a bit shady that they investigated the costs involved in improving a service, deemed it to be not worthwhile and then when asked to provide details of said investigation they refuse to do so claiming the information is confidential.

I'm just wondering if I was to contact the Ombudsman would they have enough power to tweeze this information from the department in question? How am I to know that the investigation was actually carried out in the first place?

antoinolachtnai · 09-12-2020 7:30am

You could have your TD ask a parliamentary question.

You could make an FOI request.

mickuhaha · 09-12-2020 7:42am

From my basic understanding of it.

The role of the ombudsman is to settle disputes between People/organisations and government bodies. It is also to recommend policy changes to improve things to prevent future disputes. It does not involve itself in criminal issues.

You complain to the ombudsman after you have attempted to resolve the issue directly with the government related office via their complaints procedures.

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 7:52am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You could have your TD ask a parliamentary question.

You could make an FOI request.

Hmm...I never knew about the FOI request thing. I know about the parliamentary question thing but I've already contacted the minister's office regarding the issue and they have a habit of avoiding my questions etc. There's not much substance in there responses.

If I made a FOI request couldn't the person who made the initial investigation say that they have lost/forgotten the details as it was carried out some months ago? Also they could claim it was a quick informal investigation where there is no record taken of the details.

antoinolachtnai · 09-12-2020 8:01am

segosego89 wrote: »

Hmm...I never knew about the FOI request thing. I know about the parliamentary question thing but I've already contacted the minister's office regarding the issue and they have a habit of avoiding my questions etc. There's not much substance in there responses.

If I made a FOI request couldn't the person who made the initial investigation say that they have lost/forgotten the details as it was carried out some months ago? Also they could claim it was a quick informal investigation where there is no record taken of the details.

They could do all that yes.

You really have to figure out what you are trying to achieve here.

Peregrinus · 09-12-2020 8:11am

segosego89 wrote: »

Hmm...I never knew about the FOI request thing. I know about the parliamentary question thing but I've already contacted the minister's office regarding the issue and they have a habit of avoiding my questions etc. There's not much substance in there responses.

If I made a FOI request couldn't the person who made the initial investigation say that they have lost/forgotten the details as it was carried out some months ago? Also they could claim it was a quick informal investigation where there is no record taken of the details.

If you make an FoI request, they have to give you what they've got (unless it is covered by one of a fairly narrow range of grounds on which disclosure can be refused, in which case they have to tell you that they've got it, that they are not giving it to you, and the reason why there are justified in not giving it to you). They won't just lie and deny that they have records, information or data which in fact they have.

So, if you make an FoI request and the answer is "we have nothing" or "we have this one-page memo and two emails and that's it", that answer is probably reliable. In that case your objection is not that you suspect they are withholding information; it's that they have failed to carry out any investigation, or any proper investigation.

Where you go with this I think depends on whether you yourself are adversely affected by the Department's poor service, the improvement of which they have failed or refused to investigate, or whether you are raising this more as a concerned citizen, desiring to improve the quality of public administration for the public benefit. If some service to you, or some decision affecting you, has gone badly because of this you can certainly take this up with the Ombudsman to vindicate your interest. But the Ombudsman's office was not set up to enable private citizens to second-guess the management of public business generally. If you think the department should be following a different policy in relation to the provision of this service than the one they do in fact follow and this is resulting in avoidable inefficiency or expense or whatever, that;s maybe a matter you should campaign on through your TD.

angel eyes 2012 · 09-12-2020 8:24am

segosego89 wrote: »

Hmm...I never knew about the FOI request thing. I know about the parliamentary question thing but I've already contacted the minister's office regarding the issue and they have a habit of avoiding my questions etc. There's not much substance in there responses.

If I made a FOI request couldn't the person who made the initial investigation say that they have lost/forgotten the details as it was carried out some months ago? Also they could claim it was a quick informal investigation where there is no record taken of the details.

It would be unusual that records from some months ago would be lost. The later could be more realistic, in that a discussion was held about improving said service and senior manager responded by saying that would require a new system to be introduced, which would cost X in procurement and Y in implementation, forget it...

After you submit an FOI and you are not satisfied with the initial response, you have a right to seek an internal review of the decision and following that you can appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

However, FOI is about transparency and record keeping, it is not about answering questions on policy or mandating a public body to introduce an improved system, so your efforts may be futile.

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 8:44am

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

It would be unusual that records from some months ago would be lost. The later could be more realistic, in that a discussion was held about improving said service and senior manager responded by saying that would require a new system to be introduced, which would cost X in procurement and Y in implementation, forget it...

After you submit an FOI and you are not satisfied with the initial response, you have a right to seek an internal review of the decision and following that you can appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

However, FOI is about transparency and record keeping, it is not about answering questions on policy or mandating a public body to introduce an improved system, so your efforts may be futile.

Thanks so much for the helpful response. I'm learning a lot from people's responses on this thread.

I have a strong feeling that if I was to submit a FOI that the person who made the investigation would state that they made a quick verbal non-written query with one of their superiors. They both could possibly cover for themselves in stating that they cannot remember the specifics of the conversation that took place months ago.

I have no delusions that by either submitting an FOI, getting my TD to ask a parliamentary question or contacting the Ombudsman would introduce the new system. I'm just trying to focus now on making sure that a sincere effort was made to investigate the possibility of introducing an improved system. I'm also concerned by the fact that it was entirely at the discretion of the person who made the investigation to decide to not introduce the improved system based on their findings on the costs involved(which they have refused to divulge). Isn't there something inherently unethical about that?

You mentioned that if I am not satisfied with the FOI result I can seek an "internal review of the decision"? Can you specify what you mean by that? Are you talking about an internal review within the governmental department itself?

AndrewJRenko · 09-12-2020 8:44am

segosego89 wrote: »

Thanks for the helpful reply.

I originally made this thread because I was told by someone who works in a particular department that they supposedly investigated the costs of improving a service in their department after I had made a complaint about this service.
After looking into the matter, this person concluded that it was not worth the costs involved to improve the service. When I asked for details of this investigation they said it was confidential to the department.

Do you really think that every public servant has the time and resources to drop everything and implement every improvement idea that every citizen comes up with?

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 8:47am

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

It would be unusual that records from some months ago would be lost. The later could be more realistic, in that a discussion was held about improving said service and senior manager responded by saying that would require a new system to be introduced, which would cost X in procurement and Y in implementation, forget it...

After you submit an FOI and you are not satisfied with the initial response, you have a right to seek an internal review of the decision and following that you can appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

However, FOI is about transparency and record keeping, it is not about answering questions on policy or mandating a public body to introduce an improved system, so your efforts may be futile.

Cheers for the helpful information.

As mentioned in my previous message, I have no delusions that by either submitting an FOI, getting my TD to ask a parliamentary question or contacting the Ombudsman would introduce the new system.

I'm just trying to focus now on making sure that a sincere effort was made to investigate the possibility of introducing an improved system. I'm also concerned by the fact that it was entirely at the discretion of the person who made the investigation to decide to not introduce the improved system based on their findings on the costs involved(which they have refused to divulge). Isn't there something inherently unethical about that?

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 8:55am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you really think that every public servant has the time and resources to drop everything and implement every improvement idea that every citizen comes up with?

I never asked anyone to drop everything to investigate my one complaint. You're making an assumption that I think public servants are not very busy with things.
I have no delusions that they would have immediately implemented my suggestion. It has to be stressed that this improvement that I'm referring to already exists in another department so I do not consider it to be a totally unrealistic thing to consider.
I do consider the current set up to be very ungraceful and I stand by it. The system could be improved for everyone if they were to implement the same system that is currently used in the other department that I have mentioned.

If people didn't complain about things within reason nothing would improve or change.

Peregrinus · 09-12-2020 8:57am

segosego89 wrote: »

. . . You mentioned that if I am not satisfied with the FOI result I can seek an "internal review of the decision"? Can you specify what you mean by that? Are you talking about an internal review within the governmental department itself?

This refers to the decision on your FoI request. If they tell you "you are not entitled to the information you seek because [reasons]" then you have a right to a review of that decision by a higher-up person in the Department with more expertise on FoI obligations. (And if you're not satisfied with that review you can take the matter to the Office of the Infomation Commissioner for an external review.)

But if they give you the information you have asked for, and it shows that they made what you think was a poor-researched or poorly-reasoned decision not to implement your suggested improvements, the FoI legislation doesn't give you any right to a review of that decision.

segosego89 · 09-12-2020 9:32am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This refers to the decision on your FoI request. If they tell you "you are not entitled to the information you seek because [reasons]" then you have a right to a review of that decision by a higher-up person in the Department with more expertise on FoI obligations. (And if you're not satisfied with that review you can take the matter to the Office of the Infomation Commissioner for an external review.)

But if they give you the information you have asked for, and it shows that they made what you think was a poor-researched or poorly-reasoned decision not to implement your suggested improvements, the FoI legislation doesn't give you any right to a review of that decision.

If I actually get the information I want after an FOI request as you said and it turns out the decision was poorly-reasoned etc, could I not use this information if I was to contact the Ombudsman regarding this issue? The FOI request may not be totally futile?

Peregrinus · 09-12-2020 9:53am

segosego89 wrote: »

If I actually get the information I want after an FOI request as you said and it turns out the decision was poorly-reasoned etc, could I not use this information if I was to contact the Ombudsman regarding this issue? The FOI request may not be totally futile?

No. Any information you get from an FoI request you can certain employ in a complaint to the Ombudsman.

But what the Ombudsman is interested in is complaints from people who have been treated unfairly. "I think the Department should deliver X service in this manner rather than in that manner" is not a complaing the Ombudsman can do much about. You need to reframe your complaint along the lines of "I am adversely affected by the manner in which the Department delivers X service (and it poor administration to deliver the service in that manner because here is an obviously better manner that other departments use and they could too)".

If you can't point to some injury or disadvantage to yourself that results from the current practice then, however poor the current practice is, it's not a matter about which you can complain to the Ombudsman.

AndrewJRenko · 09-12-2020 9:28pm

segosego89 wrote: »

I never asked anyone to drop everything to investigate my one complaint. You're making an assumption that I think public servants are not very busy with things.
I have no delusions that they would have immediately implemented my suggestion. It has to be stressed that this improvement that I'm referring to already exists in another department so I do not consider it to be a totally unrealistic thing to consider.
I do consider the current set up to be very ungraceful and I stand by it. The system could be improved for everyone if they were to implement the same system that is currently used in the other department that I have mentioned.

If people didn't complain about things within reason nothing would improve or change.

Every system can be improved. You can spend forever improving things, or you can stop and spend some time actually running things. It takes huge resources to improve things, to test improvements, to ensure the ongoing cost of running the improved service aren't going to impact other resources.

And funnily enough, most people servants know exactly what needs to be done to improve things, without your complaint. They just don't have the time or money to make this happen.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9 · 10-12-2020 12:33am

segosego89 wrote: »

Thanks for the helpful reply.

I originally made this thread because I was told by someone who works in a particular department that they supposedly investigated the costs of improving a service in their department after I had made a complaint about this service.
After looking into the matter, this person concluded that it was not worth the costs involved to improve the service. When I asked for details of this investigation they said it was confidential to the department.

I might be completely wrong to think this but I find it to be a bit shady that they investigated the costs involved in improving a service, deemed it to be not worthwhile and then when asked to provide details of said investigation they refuse to do so claiming the information is confidential.

I'm just wondering if I was to contact the Ombudsman would they have enough power to tweeze this information from the department in question? How am I to know that the investigation was actually carried out in the first place?

you could complain to the ombudsman on non reply to correspondence. You would have to appeal it to the public body first. Also everything needs to ge in writing. Don't make or take phone calls.was your original complaint and the reply on writing

I'm not at home and on phone i hope this displays ok

How much power does the Ombudsman have?

Comments