Outcomes - Selected Case Summaries

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) attempted to informally resolve this matter with the DCI and did receive a response stating DCI officers had made several visits to the address complained of and noted during these visits that no business was being carried on at the location. DCI believed the reports at the property were more aligned with the responsibilities of the Department of Planning and the Department of Environmental Health and believed that the complaint matter had already been dealt with. The complainants were unsatisfied with the response and requested that a formal investigation be conducted.  

The subsequent investigation determined that the initial response to the complaints regarding the property had been unreasonably delayed, as had the responses provided in writing to the complainant from the DCI. Further, the investigation found a general lack of policies and procedures concerning how DCI officers should conduct such inquiries and a lack of clarity in the relevant legislation around what was meant by “carrying on business” at a specific location. The Ombudsman supported both issues raised by the complainants.

The following recommendations were made and will be monitored for compliance by the OMB going forward:

• a written policy (or policies) should be developed to direct the handling of both enforcement and compliance-related complaints received by the DCI. This is to be completed within 90 days with a copy provided to the OMB.
• the DCI should seek further legal advice to determine what the phrase “carrying on business” means in relation to s. 17(1) of the relevant legislation and whether it includes anything ancillary to “carrying on business”, including storage of business-related materials at a property
• a written apology be sent to the complainant due to the delays experienced in the processing of this complaint

All recommendations were followed by the Ministry and the DCI and the matter was closed.