Why this OIA matters (public interest and procedural fairness)

This OIA asks the Office of the Ombudsman for policies, technical records, and decision criteria relating to three connected issues that have significant public interest implications:
1. Communication restrictions / “communication plans” (limits on how a complainant can correspond);
2. Email blocking / filtering and delivery exceptions (including redirection of emails to folders or exceptions for assigned investigators); and
3. Complaint outcomes that turn on “no response” or “no supporting evidence”.

These topics matter because the Ombudsman is a key accountability institution. If a complainant’s ability to communicate is restricted, and if a complaint can be closed on the basis that the complainant did not respond or did not supply evidence, then the integrity of that process depends on robust, auditable systems and clear safeguards.

Documented context (from Ombudsman correspondence attached to this request)

The correspondence attached to this OIA describes (in summary terms):
• Restrictions previously imposed on a complainant’s contact, including limitations on lodging new complaints by email and an “email block” mechanism with certain exceptions.
• A later acknowledgement that a technological error meant emails were not received by some assigned staff during the course of complaint handling, contributing to complaints being closed due to an apparent lack of response.
• Steps said to have been taken to rectify matters (including reopening certain complaints) and to adjust processes to prevent a recurrence.

These statements raise legitimate, non-partisan questions about how such controls are designed, how failures are detected, what quality assurance exists, and what remedies apply when process failures affect outcomes.

What this OIA is seeking to clarify

This OIA requests information designed to test, in an evidence-based way, whether Ombudsman complaint handling systems have:
• Clear written policies for restricting communications, including the legal basis relied on and safeguards against procedural unfairness;
• Technical controls that are auditable (e.g., incident logs, configuration documentation, exception logic, routing rules, and error reporting);
• Decision criteria for closing matters where response/evidence is allegedly absent, including how those decisions are handled when a communication restriction or delivery failure exists; and
• Governance and assurance processes, such as internal reviews, staff training, and escalation protocols when restrictions might compromise fairness.

Why the answer matters beyond one person

Even if these issues arose in a specific case, the underlying questions are systemic:
• Access to justice and administrative fairness: People who complain to oversight agencies are often stressed, unwell, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable. Communication restrictions can be legitimate for workload and staff safety, but must be structured so they do not effectively prevent a person from being heard.
• Process integrity: If an office can close complaints because it believes someone did not respond, the public needs confidence that the office’s systems reliably deliver communications and that closure decisions are not based on false assumptions caused by filtering errors.
• Transparency and trust: The Ombudsman holds other agencies to standards of administrative fairness. The Ombudsman should be able to demonstrate that its own processes are equally documented, auditable, and correctable.

This OIA is therefore about institutional safeguards, not personal disputes.

What a “good” response would look like

A substantive response would include (as applicable):
• Current policies/procedures for communication restrictions and email blocking, including criteria, review points, and safeguards;
• Technical documentation explaining how blocks and exceptions operate;
• Incident and remediation records about the acknowledged technology error (with sensitive details appropriately withheld if necessary);
• The decision framework for “no response/no evidence” closures, and how those decisions are reviewed when delivery issues are possible; and
• Any relevant governance documents (training, QA, internal reviews, risk logs) demonstrating ongoing control.

Related background threads (context for readers)

This request sits within a wider pattern of public concern about administrative decision-making, information rights, and procedural fairness across multiple systems (OIA, Privacy Act processes, and complaint mechanisms). Readers may wish to review other FYI threads dealing with:
• ACC OIA practice and refusal grounds (e.g., issues around assistance under s13, extensions, and shifting refusal rationales);
• Health NZ / Te Whatu Ora OIA and Privacy Act handling (document schedules, internal comms, and lawful refusal grounds);
• Ministry of Health OIAs concerning transparency of decision frameworks (where public-interest arguments often arise); and
• Ombudsman complaint process issues (if any similar threads exist, they should be linked here).

(If you want this section fully linked, I can add direct FYI URLs once the specific request numbers/links are provided.)

Request for careful handling under the OIA

If any part of the request is refused, I ask that the Ombudsman specify the precise OIA ground relied upon, provide the required s19 reasons, and consider whether partial release, aggregation, or refinement assistance under s13 would address any collation concerns.

The aim is a clear, auditable explanation of how communication restrictions and email filtering interact with complaint outcomes, so the public can have confidence in procedural fairness.

Related background threads (FYI.org.nz)

This OIA should be read in the context of a wider body of FYI.org.nz requests raising recurring issues of procedural fairness, assistance obligations, refusal practices, and transparency across New Zealand oversight and regulatory agencies.

The following FYI threads provide relevant background:
1. ACC – refusal grounds and assistance obligations (s 18(f) / s 13 OIA)
Request examining ACC’s organisational structure, staffing distribution, contractor use, and associated cost structures, and raising issues about refusal rationales and assistance duties.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33147
2. Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) – refusal and non-disclosure issues
Request concerning refusal Ref HNZ00083542, including failures to provide document schedules, internal communications, and lawful refusal grounds under the OIA and Privacy Act.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/31103
3. Ministry of Health – fluoride in drinking water
Request FYI #31211 seeking scientific evidence reviews, legal thresholds under the Health Act, and internal decision-making records relating to fluoridation, with broader implications for transparency and proportionality.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/31211
4. Ministry of Health – CVTAG / CV-ISMB governance and transparency
Request FYI #31200 seeking minutes, decision records, and transparency around COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CVTAG) and CV-ISMB processes, highlighting systemic information-access concerns.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/31200
5. Ministry of Health – COVID-19 After Action Review
Request FYI #30778, raising issues about delayed responses, refusal under s 18(g)(i), and failures to offer assistance, relevant to patterns of administrative opacity.
https://fyi.org.nz/request/30778

⸻

Why these threads are relevant to this Ombudsman OIA

Across these requests, common themes emerge:
• Decisions turning on “lack of response” or “lack of evidence”, despite disputes about whether information was lawfully received or properly considered;
• Use of procedural mechanisms (extensions, refusal grounds, communication controls) that materially affect a person’s ability to participate in accountability processes; and
• Inconsistent or opaque internal systems, including record-keeping, document schedules, and communication handling.

The Ombudsman plays a central role in reviewing and correcting such failures across government. This OIA therefore seeks assurance that the Ombudsman’s own complaint-handling systems, communication restrictions, and technical controls meet the same standards of fairness, transparency, and reliability that it expects of other agencies.