Outcomes - Selected Case Summaries
Categories
Two-year ban on NAU services
Investigation | 01 December 2023
Needs Assessment Unit (NAU)
The complainant was informed via letter that she had been barred from receiving further services from the Needs Assessment Unit (NAU) for two years. The NAU stated the complainant had violated NAU policy and provided false/misleading information, or that she deliberately withheld information that was pertinent to the NAU assessment process for her financial assistance application. The complainant disputed the infractions alleged by NAU, stating that she did provide case workers the information and they either simply didn't take her phone calls or it was stated she did not provide the information in a timely manner, as required by the policy.
Upon review of the complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) noted that activities similar to the ones alleged by the NAU could lead to an allegation of crime being made to the RCIPS. However, the letter from the NAU was not definitive as to whether any such report was made. It was later determined that no allegations had been filed with the police, but that the NAU had still barred the applicant from services due to her alleged misleading and false statements.
The OMB sought to informally resolve the matter with the NAU and the complainant and this elicited a further, more detailed explanation to the OMB as to why the NAU took the decisions it did in relation to her application. However, as nothing was provided to the complainant in writing and the complainant remained unsatisfied with the result of the informal process, OMB moved the matter to a formal investigation.
The findings of this investigation were as follows:
Issue 1 - Was the NAU’s decision to deny services for two years administratively fair?
- It would appear based on our investigation the NAU did not have the legal authority to bar the complainant from services and did not follow the tenets of its eligibility criteria policy in doing so. The Ombudsman found maladministration did occur and recommended administrative remedies.
Issue 2 - Did the NAU provide adequate reasons to the complainant for the decision to bar her from services?
- The complainant was provided with exhaustive reasons for the decision, however the Ombudsman found the NAU’s decision did not accord with existing legislation and policies.
The following recommendations were made as a result of the findings:
- That the two-year ban, done without lawful or policy authority, should be reconsidered. (For the avoidance of doubt, the OMB did NOT recommend that the complainant in this case should be referred to the RCIPS. The passage of time, among other matters considered, would cause an injustice to be done to the complainant if this was to occur.) If she should apply again and act in a fraudulent or untruthful manner, she should be advised that this will be reported to the police.
- That a provision in the NAU eligibility criteria policy regarding fraudulent cases be rewritten to comply with section 28 of the Financial Assistance Act and all other relevant legislation. This should be completed within 90 days with a copy provided to OMB.
- That the NAU eligibility criteria policy be further amended to indicate the criteria for barring clients from services, including whether and how clients can be legally barred in the absence of any criminal conviction. This should be done within 90 days with a copy provided to OMB
The OMB will now monitor these recommendations to ensure compliance.