The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, and the Commissioner for Environment and Planning, Perit Alan Saliba welcome the operation carried out by officials from the Malta Tourism Authority, the Planning Authority, the Lands Authority, and the police to restore order in St George’s Square, Rabat, Gozo so that outdoor occupation of the square does not exceed the approved 111 square metres in concessions.

On 13th June 2024, the Commissioner for Environment and Planning had written to the Commissioner of Police to take immediate action with the assistance of the authorities responsible for regulating and enforcing the use of outside tables and chairs by catering establishments.

The Office of the Ombudsman has been actively addressing the concerns arising from the lack of enforcement of outdoor dining regulations. The Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Environment and Planning appeal for long-term solutions to enforce regulations on outside tables and chairs.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets has agreed to review the way it allocates properties after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman uncovered it had a long backlog in processing applications to join its housing register.

The discovery came when the Ombudsman investigated how the council handled an application from a woman who was resident in its area.

The woman, who has mobility problems, moved to Tower Hamlets as she was fleeing domestic abuse.

When her landlord told her they wanted the property back, she approached the council to join its housing register.

The woman told the council her property was not suitable due to her medical conditions – she could not leave the property and could not manage the stairs to its entrance.

The council decided the woman did not qualify to join its housing register as she had not lived in the borough long enough.

The woman asked the council to review its decision. The council took six months to do so and the council did not change its decision. She complained and the council apologised for not considering her medical conditions properly and agreed to reconsider the woman’s application on medical grounds.

It awarded her a priority band 2B but failed to tell her of her right to seek a review of this decision.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found problems with the way the council considered the woman’s application – taking six months to do so when the Ombudsman recommends it should have been decided in eight weeks. The investigation also found the council failed to assess her application on medical grounds when she first made contact.

The Ombudsman also found the council at fault for not telling the woman of her right to a review of its decision, and for the time it took to carry out its review when she asked it to do so.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal said:

“Taking six months to decide a person’s homelessness application – when the process should only take eight weeks is simply unacceptable.

“While the faults I have identified have not stopped the woman from successfully bidding on a property, the time taken for the council to consider her application, and its initial failure to consider her medical needs can only have added to her distress.

“I hope reviewing the way it considers applications, and the action plan it has agreed to draw up, will significantly reduce waiting times for everyone in the borough.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the woman and make a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the distress caused.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council will draw up an action plan for reducing the delay in considering applications for the housing register and to decide applications within eight weeks.

The council will also remind officers to consider whether an applicant, who does not have a local connection, has housing needs, including medical needs, when considering housing register applications. It will also review the letters it sends to applicants reminding them of their right to seek a review of decisions.

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-07/cp240110en.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr ga it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

PRESS RELEASE No 110/24

Luxembourg, 11 July 2024

Judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-554/21 | HANN-INVEST, C-622/21 | MINERAL-SEKULINE and C-727/21 | UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB

Rule of law: only the judicial panel responsible for a case can decide its outcome Any undue interference by persons from outside the judicial panel must be precluded A procedural mechanism internal to a court or tribunal intended to avoid or resolve conflicts in case-law and thus to ensure the legal certainty inherent in the principle of the rule of law must itself comply with the requirements linked to the independence of the judiciary. In particular, it is only the judicial panel responsible for a case that is to take the decision closing the proceedings. Any undue interference by persons from outside the judicial panel must be precluded. In the Croatian courts of second instance, all decisions adopted by a judicial panel must be forwarded to the registrations judge of the relevant court before the decision is considered formally delivered and may be sent to the parties. The registrations judge is designated by the president of the relevant court. In practice, the registrations judge has the power to stay the delivery of a judgment and to give instructions to the judicial panel. The parties have no knowledge of the involvement or name of the registrations judge. If the judicial panel does not comply with the instructions of the registration judge, that judge may request that a section meeting be convened. The section meeting is able to put forward a 'legal position' that is binding on all judicial panels belonging to the section. The judicial panel concerned, which will already have concluded its deliberations, must, if necessary, alter the judicial decision previously adopted. According to the Croatian Commercial Court of Appeal, this procedural mechanism has thus far been justified by the need to ensure consistency of case-law. Having doubts as to its compatibility with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of the rule of law 1 , it referred questions to the Court of Justice on the issue.

(...)

A Gravesend care provider has refused to refund fees it charged a family for their relative’s care, despite the Ombudsman saying it should do so.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has asked Priory Mews Healthcare Ltd to refund part of the money it charged a family for a relative’s four-month stay in 2023. However, the provider has refused, despite there being no contract in place at the time the money was charged.

The Ombudsman has issued an Adverse Findings Notice about the provider, which will be shared with care regulator the Care Quality Commission. The notice is the last step of the Ombudsman’s powers, to inform the public in the rare occasions when a care provider decides not to carry out the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

The family’s complaint was from when their relative’s placement at the home moved from being funded by the council to being independently funded. The family knew they would be charged for the care, made enquiries, and believed they would be paying a similar amount to the money the council had been paying.

However, the care provider did not confirm this, and instead landed the family with a significantly higher bill when they finally sent out their contract some months later.

The Ombudsman told the provider to repay the family the difference between what they paid for the four months of care, and the cost of a less expensive care home that they moved the relative to, when they received the new contract.

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“It is vitally important that families are provided with clear contracts, containing all the information they need to budget, so they are not faced with distressing decisions when the true cost of care comes to light.

“In this case, the family had to make the difficult decision to move their relative some months after they had settled in the care home.

“I have asked the provider to repay the difference in fees between their costs and those of the new home because it is clear the relative would have moved her at the earliest opportunity had they known sooner.

“I am deeply concerned with the provider’s response to both my investigation and its recommendations and hope it will reflect on my report and look again at how it considers any complaints it receives.”

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, participated in the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) European Board meeting. This was the second meeting of the Board, following the first meeting held in The Hague during the IOI World Conference. The meeting was presided over by the President of the Board, Reinier Van Zutphen, Ombudsman of the Netherlands.

One of the items on the agenda was a letter from the Ombudsman of Kosovo regarding the rejection of his Annual Report by the Kosovo Parliament. In his letter, the Ombudsman of Kosovo sought the support of the IOI, as he emphasised that the rejection of the report poses a significant threat to the effectiveness of carrying out his mandate and also represents political pressure on the independence of the institution. The European Regional Board discussed the letter and agreed that further information would be sought from the Kosovan counterparts on this matter.

The President of the Board presented a report on his meeting in Poland with the Executive Director of Frontex, the Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Minister of Justice, which aimed to gain insight into the effects the Migration Pact will have on Europe and the way national governments will need to implement the Pact. The Board agreed that a workshop shall be organised in Brussels this October to discuss in more detail the effects of the Pact.

The meeting also discussed upcoming events organised by members of the European Region of the IOI, namely two conferences towards the end of the year. One in Ukraine will discuss ‘Reclaiming Human Rights: Preserving Democracy’, and another in Slovenia will discuss the effectiveness of Ombudsman institutions as NHRIs. The Ombudsman of Malta confirmed his participation in the conference in Slovenia.

Another item was a seminar organised by the Dutch National Ombudsman as part of the Ombuds Academy, discussing complaint behaviour and encouraging the sharing of experiences from different institutions.

The members of the European Regional Board were elected last December following an election by the members of IOI Europe. The next meeting will be held in Cyprus in November.