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
Guides
Commonly used guides include:
- The OIA for Ministers and agencies
- The LGOIMA for local government agencies
- Making official information requests: a guide for requesters
Detailed guidance on the official information legislation and aspects of good administrative practice.
We also have guidance on disability rights and protected disclosures.
Case notes and opinions
Case notes are a short case summary, often demonstrating an aspect of a case.
An Ombudsman's Opinion is published where there is public interest in showing the full details of a case.
Reports
Reports include OPCAT, disability rights, official information practice and systemic investigation.
Outreach
Contains our media releases, newsletters, pamphlets, speeches and fact sheets. Fact sheets are published in multiple language and accessible formats.
Corporate documents
This includes our annual reports and strategic intentions.
Projects, reference and data
This includes our official information complaints data, updates on investigations and other projects, and submissions by the Ombudsman.
View all projects, reference and data
Template letters and work sheets
These template letters and work sheets can be used by agencies to help respond to official information requests.
205 Resources Show all
Council seeks order from Environment Court about noise of bird scare device
Case notesCouncil had not enforced noise restrictions with respect to bird scaring devices because of the difficulty in obtaining adequate evidence for enforcement action—following Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council agreed to seek a ruling on the matter with the Environment Court and this action effectively resolved the complaintCouncil to advise when a person’s status under Resource Management Act is changed
Case notesResource consent application—non-notified—s 94(2) Resource Management Act 1991—change of status from ‘adversely affected’ to ‘not adversely affected’—complainant not advised of change and believed right to object remained intact—Council agreed to amend its policies and proceduresRequest for Consultative Draft District Plan
Case notesConsultative Draft District Plan refused under s 7(2)(f)(i)—information did not meet requirements of that section—no statutory prohibition in Resource Management Act which prevents information being made available before the date of notification—Resource Management Act 1991, s 35(2)Council property sale conducted but complainants not advised about status of their objection petition
Case notesCouncil resolved to sell property of historic significance and occupants petitioned Council to reverse its decision—Council referred petition to committees for consideration and report but before reports completed, concluded the sale of property—the occupants complained of failure of Council to follow due process (failure to report) but failure did not mean complaint could be sustained—however procedural shortcomings acknowledged by Council and apology extended to complainantLocal Authority fails to follow legislative procedures when setting fee for dog registration
Case notesLocal Authority imposes Dog Control Fees by resolution of Committee—there is a requirement for resolution of territorial authority to take particular matters to be taken into account under the Dog Control Act 1996, s 37 and Local Government Act 1974, s 114Q—Council failed to follow legislative procedures when setting registration feesDistrict Council not unreasonable to retain credit balance in rates account
Case notesEarly payment of rates—credit balance in rates account— whether local authority has obligation to make refund on requestLocal Authorities must comply with LGOIMA intent when setting rules
Case notesA Deed of Confidentiality was distributed to Councillors for signature, with the aim to protect information relating to the Council’s business and affairs—Councillor was concerned that signing the document would conflict with the intentions under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and also that Councillors who don’t sign would have restrictions on information they received—Ombudsman ruled that under LGOIMA, a Council may not put rules in place which are inconsistent with the Act and Councils cannot withhold information from Councillors who have not signed that confidentiality agreementDistrict Council accepts wider interpretation of ‘household’
Case notesImposition of two sewer charges—whether complainant’s mother part of the ‘household’— interpretation of Rating Powers Act 1988, s 30Local Authority required to ensure potable water condition meets standards
Case notesComplaint about potable water condition of subdivision consent where supply did not meet requirements under New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 1984 (revised 2005 and 2008)—Ombudsman found local authority failed to interpret data correctly before issuing resource consent on the subdivision—the water quality was substandard and the local authority provided incorrect advice about improving the quality—the local authority was required to compensate the complainants who had to obtain potable water from another sourceCity Council not required to consider legal costs regarding enforcement order
Case notesClaim for reimbursement of legal costs incurred obtaining an Enforcement Order—Court awarded costs—insufficient to cover full costs—co-operation between complainant and City Council prior to proceedings—costs not covered in agreement—claim not upheldCouncil accepts practical solution to resolve concerns about building consent
Case notesBuilding consent for garage—garage constructed to wrong plans—Council issues notice to rectify—retrospective consent granted—withdrawal of notice to rectifyCommunity Boards fall under Ombudsmen jurisdiction if decision(s) made other than by Committee as a whole
Case notesJurisdiction—Community Board—decisions of full Board outside jurisdiction—scope of jurisdiction limited to acts or decisions of committees, subcommittees, officers, employees or members of Board—Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 13(1) and (2)City Council offers partial rebate for charge on excess water usage
Case notesExcess water usage charges—local authority policy on rebates—partial or full rebate—hidden leakageRequest for details of risk management processes
Case notesRequest for details of risk management processes—relevant documents provided apart from the ‘risk register’—register consisted of free and frank expressions of opinion—release might undermine risk management strategy—public interest met by release of Risk Management PolicyRequest for file on alleged informant
Case notesRequest for file on alleged informant—Minister neither confirmed nor denied existence of information—any confirmation or denial that a person is or has been an informant for a law enforcement agency is likely to prejudice the interest protected by section 6(c)—appropriate for the Minister to neither confirm nor deny whether the file was in existenceLocal Authority has no right to demand legal and court fees from non-paying customer
Case notesLocal Authority issued legal proceedings to recover unpaid mooring charges along with an account for ‘legal and court costs’—as the case had not been heard by a Court, the complainant claimed this was wrong—Ombudsman upheld the complaint, noting that a Local Authority cannot claim costs and legal fees (this being a matter for the Court to determine) and the Local Authority cannot list these on a person’s account as owing—the Local Authority changed its procedures regarding recovery of court costsLocal Authority not unreasonable to grant non-notified resource consent despite neighbour’s objections
Case notesLocal Authority granted non-notifiable resource consent for building extension where complainant claimed the structure would block his lake views. Council correctly applied s 94(2)(b) when it determined that no persons would be affected by the building because the adverse effect of the proposal on the environment was minor—allowing the proposal to proceed on a non-notified basis was not unreasonableLocal Authority remedies misunderstanding with elderly vendor in property re-purchase agreement
Case notesValuation of property for re-purchase—reliance by Council on valuer’s expertise—Council did not disclose information about recent comparable sales—perceived threat to withdraw unilaterally from transaction—Council’s intention to offer vendor opportunity to seek release from contract—apology and ex gratia payment offered for misunderstandingLocal Authority revises time limits for oral submissions on draft annual plan
Case notesAnnual Plan—special consultative process—amount of time to be allowed for oral submissions—s 716A of the Local Government Act 1974Local Authority agreed its processes were inadequate when it removed vehicle from public street
Case notesVehicle removed by Local Authority in street—car had no registration sticker, was removed in accordance with ss 356(2) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1974 and stripped and crushed at a local tip—complainant claimed unfair process and investigation indicated a dispute of facts between the two parties about the time the car had been parked—Ombudsman found Authority’s records of actions inadequate—due process not followed—Authority accepted opinion—agreed to compensate for loss of the vehicle, apologise and to improve clarity of guidelines and procedures for record keepingLocal Authority determines adverse effect for non-notified resource consent
Case notesNon-notified resource consent application for consent to erect second storey to property—neighbour denied objection and appeal rights—interpretation of s 94 of the Resource Management Act 1991City Councillors can challenge Council’s decisions through Council’s Regulatory Committee, not Ombudsman
Case notesDecision of Council not to notify application for resource consent—request by Councillor for review of decision—insufficient personal interest—Resource Management Act 1991, s 94—Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 17(1)(b)District Council agrees to backdate effect of rate fee to when notice of ownership received
Case notesRating—uniform annual general charges levied on adjoining properties—local authority not notified that adjoining properties were occupied by same ratepayer—application for a refund on the basis that only a single uniform annual general charge was payable—Rating Powers Act 1988, ss 21(1) and 23.Local Authority required to clarify ‘original ground level’ for purposes of resource consents under District Plans
Case notesPoints of reference for measurements for height dispensations—need for clarity in district plansEarthquake Commission can impose excess levy under the regulations
Case notesTwo adjoining properties affected by a landslide – EQC levied an excess on both properties in accordance with the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (Regulations 1993, reg 4(1)(b)—the Ombudsman concluded EQC was entitled to impose the excessCouncil ameliorates non-notified development plan where neighbours adversely affected
Case notesLocal Authority did not notify application for subdivision consent but neighbours claimed they were affected by it and following Ombudsman’s inquiries, Council agreed to ameliorate offending features of development—the complaint was therefore resolved to complainants’ satisfactionNon-notification under RMA not unreasonable, but Council should include community involvement in decision
Case notesNon-notification of resource consent application allowed—Resource Management Act 1991, s 94Local Authority rejects Ombudsman’s recommendation to monitor nuisance as required under RMA
Case notesLocal Authority failed to respond to complaints from residents about dust and noise nuisance. What it should have done was to consider complaints from residents by undertaking relevant surveys and tests to determine the extent of the problem being complained about (this is a responsibility under ss17 and 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991)—complaint sustained —Ombudsman recommended the Local Authority monitor noise and nuisance effects—recommendation rejectedLocal Authority issued a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) unlawfully
Case notesProperty developer changed basis of development and obtained new Project Information Memorandum (PIM) containing conditions not prescribed in s 31(2) of the Building Act 1991—complainant considered the contents of the PIM unauthorised as the changes had not been agreed to by purchasers of the owner developing the property and action incurring legal expenses—Ombudsman found PIM not issued lawfully but agreed for Authority to amend the PIM to comply with LGOIMA—complainant offered ex gratia payment in recognition of legal costs incurredLocal Authority issues non-notified resource consent for vacant site
Case notesNon-notified resource consent application granted for vacant site – neighbours claimed damage resulted from excavations and complained about the height of the building erected—Ombudsman investigated and found no apparent breach of s 94 of the Resource Management Act or District Plan rules and concluded the Local Authority was not unreasonable to issue a non-notified consent in this case—complaint not sustained—question of liability for damage allegedly incurred by complainants was a civil matter to be pursued in the courtsLocal Authorities should avoid unnecessary delay processing resource consents
Case notesTime limits for decisions made in respect of resource consent applications—ss 21 and 115 of the Resource Management Act—processing delays—responsibility of local authorities to avoid unreasonable delaysRequest for names of ‘eminent New Zealanders’ consulted during preparation of Intelligence and Security Agencies Bill
Case notesRequest for names of ‘eminent New Zealanders’ who were part of the consultative process in preparing the Intelligence and Security Agencies Bill—request refused under s 9(2)(g)(i) —individuals consulted—in respect of those who advised that disclosure would inhibit them from giving free and frank advice to the Government in future, section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—need to withhold outweighed by countervailing public interest