Ombudsman: Ten-year delay in transport supports for people with disabilities is ‘shameful’

A 10-year delay in providing transport supports for people with disabilities has been described as “shameful” by Ombudsman Ger Deering.

He also said a record number of complaints was received by his office in 2022, primarily due to 835 contacts about the Passport Service.

Speaking on the publication of his annual report for 2022, Mr Deering said: “The manner in which people with disabilities continue to be denied access to personal transport supports is nothing short of shameful. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done but no one seems to be willing to take action.”

He said the situation was allowed to continue despite a commitment from government more than 10 years ago to develop an appropriate scheme and reports from two departments highlighting the need for such supports.

Ask Owen Doyle: When should a rugby referee give a warning, and when should they give a penalty?

---

Taxation on investments: What changes might be on the way?

---

Gardaí to use undercover lorry to see into cars and HGVs and film distracted drivers

---

Radio: The 2 Johnnies set to leave 2FM next week, RTÉ confirms

---

Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there is an onus on the State to provide access to transportation on an equal basis with others to enable people with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in society.

The Ombudsman said that the current situation for people with disabilities is unfair and unacceptable.

He referred to issues with three schemes – the Motorised Transport Grant, the Mobility Allowance, and the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers scheme.

He said that when his predecessors highlighted inequities in the schemes, the response of government was either to discontinue the schemes, or in the case of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme, to reinforce the inequitable criteria in primary legislation. He pointed out the latter scheme has not had an appeals mechanism in place since November 2021.

Mr Deering recalled that in 2013, the-then government announced it would introduce an alternative to the Motorised Transport Grant and Mobility Allowance. However, more than 10 years later nothing has happened.

The Department of Finance (last October), and the Department Equality (last February) have published reports on the issue “but there has been no progress”, he said.

“We do not need more committees or reports, we need clear leadership and action. I will continue to highlight this shameful neglect until real progress is achieved.”

Referring to the number of complaints received last year, Mr Deering said the total was 4,791, the highest on record and an increase of more than 19 per cent on the previous year.

Complaints about the Passport Service mainly related to delays in processing applications. However, the Ombudsman said it was expected that there would be a significant fall-off in such complaints this year, as the service had engaged constructively with his office to help resolve the issues and improve customer service.

Complaints about Government departments and offices accounted for the largest number of contacts (1,842 – an increase of 73 per cent on 2021). This included 853 about the Department of Foreign Affairs (including the 835 passport complaints) and 621 about the Department of Social Protection.

There were 1,269 complaints about local authorities (down 2 per cent), with most relating to housing. This included 200 complaints about Dublin City Council, 86 about Limerick City and County Council, and 78 about Cork city Council.

There were 790 complaints about health and social care bodies, with 300 complaints about the HSE and 104 about Tusla.

The Ombudsman’s Office completed 4,808 complaints – the highest ever in the history of the Office and a 21 per cent increase on the previous year. It also responded to 6,710 enquiries, an increase of 9.5 per cent.

According to the Ombudsman Office, it examines complaints from members of the public who believe they have been unfairly treated by certain public service providers.

It also examines complaints about failures by public bodies to provide accessible buildings, services and information.

Case studies:

Car value drops after NCT accidentally adds 40,000km to mileage reading

When Sarah went to sell her car she noticed that the National Car Testing Service (NCT) had accidentally added over 40,000km to the odometer reading on her NCT certificate. When she complained to the service it said it could not change the reading as any errors needed to be brought to its attention at the time of the NCT.

The Ombudsman noted there were a number of Covid-related restrictions in place at the time of Sarah’s NCT, including encouraging car owners to leave the NCT centre as soon as possible after the test. This meant that Sarah may not have seen notices indicating the NCT’s policy. After the Ombudsman intervened, the NCT apologised for the error and issued a revised NCT certificate with the correct reading.

Department could not find file after €32,000 social welfare overpayment

John complained to the Ombudsman when the Department of Social Protection started to recoup over €32,000 it said it had overpaid him in his Invalidity Pension.

When the Ombudsman asked the department for evidence of the overpayment the department said it could not locate John’s file. In an earlier investigation report (Fair Recovery, 2019), the Ombudsman had said that if the department cannot locate a file, then there is unlikely to be anything to support a decision to recover the overpayment, and there is nothing to support a decision to withhold arrears.

Following discussion with the Ombudsman, the department agreed to refund the amount John had already repaid. It also confirmed it would write off the overpayment.

€32,000 nursing home bill despite being told that costs would be covered

Caroline contacted the Ombudsman when solicitors from her brother’s nursing home sought payment of €32,000 in fees for a seven-month period between her brother being admitted to the home and approval for funding under the Nursing Home Support Scheme (NHSS – Fair Deal). There was no contract in place for the seven-month period, and Caroline’s family said they were told by the home that the fees would be covered by HSE ‘emergency funding’.

There is a statutory obligation on nursing homes to put in place a contract for residents. In addition, there was no evidence on the nursing home file to suggest fees were discussed for the period the family were awaiting the approval of the NHSS. In response, the nursing home agreed to waive the €32,000 charge.