Open main menu Close main menu
Search by keyword

Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guides, case notes, opinions, reports and other information. Resources and publications can also be searched by date and other options. 

Use the search bar to make your search. Then use the filters to narrow down the results by resource type or topic. 

More information about the resource categories on this page
Search by keyword

34 Resources Show all

  • Local Authority excludes public from meeting when agenda item about water issues

    Case notes
    Complaint about a Local Authority (the Council) to exclude the public from a part of its Audit and Risk Committee meeting regarding its discussion of agenda item relating to water quality and water restriction issues—insufficient weight was given to the public interest in the subject matter of the agenda item

  • Declined request for dispensation regarding school Transport Entitlement Zone

    Case notes
    A family asked the Board of Trustees (the Board) of School A for dispensation to allow their child to access bus services to attend School B.

  • Administrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim

    Case notes
    A patient who was unaware he had asbestosis underwent a CT scan while being treated at a DHB Hospital. On the scan’s accompanying notes a radiologist noted previous asbestos exposure. This CT scan with accompanying notes was misfiled, for unknown reasons, and the patient’s diagnosis of asbestosis was not confirmed until autopsy.

  • Early resolution of a potential water restriction to a family home

    Case notes
    A family received notice that an agency would be severely restricting its water supply because of an overdue account. Once the Ombudsman became involved, the agency reviewed its accounts and realised it was in error. On the Ombudsman’s request, the agency apologised to the family and committed to reviewing its accounts more carefully before advising of possible water restrictions. From complaint to resolution, the issue was resolved in only 12 working days without the family suffering water restrictions.

  • Ministry of Health unreasonably disallowed visiting Australian resident access to publicly funded health services

    Case notes
    Whether the Ministry of Health was unreasonable to determine that medical treatment obtained by a visitor to New Zealand was not ‘immediately necessary’ and therefore not covered by reciprocal health agreement with Australia – Ombudsman considered the Ministry of Health erred – complaint sustained

  • Administrative error leading to loss of opportunity to name a road

    Case notes
    In mid-2016, the owners of land containing a private road became aware that Kaipara District Council (the Council) had excluded them from a consultation process that it had initiated among residents earlier that year to determine a name for the road.

  • Local Authority not unreasonable to turn off water supply at property owned by a Trust

    Case notes
    Decision by Local Authority to turn off water supply in building occupied intermittently—Ombudsman finds not unreasonable

  • Department of Corrections staff to follow legislative requirements when segregating inmate

    Case notes
    Department of Corrections held prisoner in Management Unit without following required procedure—segregation legislation and regulations are clear and prescriptive

  • Local Authority fails to include relevant information on a Land Information Memorandum

    Case notes
    Local Authority omits to identify potential slippage risk on a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued to the complainant—Ombudsman sustains complaint

  • Decisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda

    Case notes
    A complaint was made to the Ombudsman that PHARMAC took too long to approve the May 2015 application to fund the metastatic melanoma cancer drug Keytruda.[1]

  • Ministry of Health policy on reimbursement of expenses for house modification unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was not

  • Health and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant

    Case notes
    Whether the Health and Disability Commissioner legally or otherwise required to inform complainant of a referral made to the Medical Council of New Zealand—Ombudsman concluded HDC not bound to divulge this information

  • Cancellation of transport card and refusal to refund money stored on the card

    Case notes
    A complaint was made against Auckland Transport (AT) about its cancellation of an ‘AT HOP’ card used by commuters on Auckland’s public transport system.

  • Local Authority’s efforts to mitigate effects of resource consent errors not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Local Authority decision about wall constructed on boundary—Council erred by not requiring resource consent and then offered assistance to owners to lodge application—complainant considered Council unfair not to offer assistance to him to oppose the consent

  • Local Authority’s Code of Compliance Certificate on drainage reasonable in circumstances

    Case notes
    Local Authority decision on detection of cross connection piping problem not unreasonable—Body Corporation of building forced to pay costs—question whether Code of Compliance Certificate should have been issued—Ombudsman concluded Council not aware of problem

  • Regional Authority decision on resource consent for pergola on non-notified basis not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Regional Authority’s decision to grant resource consent for a pergola on a non-notified basis was reasonable in the circumstance—permitted baseline test under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991

  • Local Authority’s Trespass Notice unreasonable in circumstances

    Case notes
    Local Authority issued Trespass Notice for two years at sports stadium—Ombudsman noted serious misconduct on part of complainant to warrant action but trespass sanction extreme—complaint sustained and Council implemented Ombudsman’s recommendations

  • Local Authority did not act unreasonably in remedying damage following tree removal

    Case notes
    Local Authority—removal of two pohutukawa trees—Council agreed to mitigate loss of these in conjunction with the land owner—Ombudsman considered Council did not act unreasonably

  • Ministry of Health’s decision following audit of aged care facility not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Ministry of Health’s HealthCERT not unreasonable to issue an aged care facility with ‘partial attainment’ in its August 2016 surveillance audit

  • Department of Corrections unreasonably declines computer access to inmate

    Case notes
    Access to computer suite in prison denied—Ombudsman found this unreasonable—Corrections agreed to reconsider the inmate’s request and to review criteria for use—also that computer facilities at prison be reviewed to ensure availability to prisoners who meet criteria for assistance with litigation

  • Department of Corrections not unreasonable to decline face to face interview between prisoner and journalist in particular case

    Case notes
    Prisoner requested face to face interview with journalist—request declined—Ombudsman noted journalist had offered to conduct interview by AVL, notwithstanding preference for face to face—Ombudsman concluded that on this basis Department had not acted unreasonably in this instance

  • Ministry of Health agrees to increase what was an unreasonably low offer of ex gratia payment

    Case notes
    Ministry of Health’s decision in December 2016 to offer complainant $8000 by way of an ex gratia payment for mistakes made by the Ministry and lengths complainant had to go to in having the Funded Family Care hours reinstated unreasonable—Ministry of Health agreed to increase the amount following the complaint.

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to consult with residents about building relocation

    Case notes
    Local Authority allowed relocation of building without providing for adequate consultation process with the local community—Ombudsman upheld complaint

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to provide information on LIM

    Case notes
    Local Authority failed to provide information in a Land Information Memorandum(LIM) about outstanding capital contribution for a sewer—Ombudsman considered Council acted unreasonably—Council made payment to complainant in resolution of complaint

  • Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over District Council electoral officer

    Case notes
    Jurisdiction—Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Council electoral officer—electoral expense returns not subject to Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1982

  • Tertiary Council appointments process controlled by Council

    Case notes
    Nomination for appointment to Tertiary Council pursuant to s 171(2)(f)(ii) Education Act 1989 required workers’ organisation to be consulted—Council refused to appoint organisation’s sole nominee and sought further nominations from organisation—appointment process stalled—alleged unreasonable failure by Council to consult—Ombudsman held consultation confers no rights on an organisation and that Council controlled appointments process

  • Department of Corrections required to state reasons for security classification

    Case notes
    Prison inmate complained that his security classification had been unreasonably assessed and Ombudsman concluded the Department failed to provide ‘strong reasons’ (which must be stated)—Ombudsman found the Prison officers had based their classification on uncorroborated, unrecorded, verbal statement made by another inmate—Ombudsman upheld complaint based on inequitable situation that would result if prison relied solely on this information, however, the inmate released before any recommendation could be made

  • Board of Trustees fails to follow principles of natural justice at disciplinary hearing for expelled student

    Case notes
    Student excluded after initially caught hiding stolen property—at the disciplinary hearing the exclusion decision not based on this incident due to lack of evidence but on history of misdemeanours—parents complained that due process had not been followed in disciplinary process—Ombudsman found that at the disciplinary hearing by school the student had no reasonable indication that the student would be answering to an allegation of continual disobedience—complaint about Board of Trustees’ process sustained and Ombudsman recommended apology, reinstatement of student, and removal of exclusion from student’s records—the Board refused to act on recommendations although the student reinstated for other reasons

  • Department of Corrections revises guidelines on implications for visitors possessing drugs

    Case notes
    Prison banned inmate’s family members from visiting for 12-months after small amount of cannabis found in their possession—the inmate complained that the duration of ban was unreasonable but the Department of Corrections noted it had zero tolerance policy for drugs with an automatic 12-month prohibition order to be placed on anyone found with them on prison property—Ombudsman concluded blanket ban unreasonable and the Department agreed each case to be considered on merits and prepared guidelines for prisons—Ombudsman advised inmate to apply for a review of prohibition order under the new guidelines

  • Council should pay for cost of obtaining second legal opinion on straightforward matter raised by complainant

    Case notes
    Property owner disagreed with Council that resource consent was necessary for building house—Council sought external legal advice and billed property owner who refused to pay—Council went to Disputes Tribunal which ordered property owner to pay all legal fees and court costs—property owner complained to Ombudsman who considered legislation and found it to be unambiguous that both the operative and proposed district plans must be complied with—Council agreed issue was straightforward and was aware of legislation and relevant case law—Ombudsman did not consider it necessary for further advice to be obtained on issue—view formed that it was appropriate for Council to exercise discretion under s36(5) of Resource Management Act 1991 and remit charge—in circumstances, Ombudsman also considered it unreasonable for Council not to remit Court and solicitor’s costs payable pursuant to Disputes Tribunal order—recommended all costs be remitted

  • Medical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal outside Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

    Case notes
    Complaint about Medical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike off a doctor and media coverage of the hearing—no jurisdiction to investigate—Ombudsman has discretion to investigate matters of administration with respect to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s investigation into the doctor’s medical practices but only if complainant has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of complaint and consent from the doctor

  • Failure by health funding body to honour undertaking by predecessor funding body to fund gender reassignment surgery unreasonable

    Case notes
    The Health Funding Authority (disestablished in 2001) was required to consider a complaint against its predecessor (Regional Health Authority) about an agreement by RHA to fund gender reassignment surgery—the RHA had initially agreed to fund this surgery but then changed its policy—the Ombudsman concluded that it was unreasonable for the RHA not to honour this undertaking on the basis of a subsequent change in policy and that its successor, the HFA should remedy the unreasonable actions of its predecessor—the HFA agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to fund the gender reassignment surgery in the manner originally approved—as the HFA was by this time disestablished the matter was passed to the Ministry of Health for completion