A sexual harassment complaint which might have resulted in criminal charges failed to reach court after the Human Rights Commission took too long to process it.

The Department of Public Prosecutions ended up being time-barred from reviewing the case — which could have been the HRC's first referral of its kind for possible prosecution — according to Ombudsman Arlene Brock's annual report for 2007.

Ms Brock points to maladministration on behalf of the HRC and has recommended it apologises to the complainant and issues a consolatory payment.

HRC chairwoman Venous Memari yesterday said the group fully complied with and accepted Ms Brock's recommendations and is conducting a review to prevent a repeat situation.

"The HRC failed to process the complaint in a timely way," states the Ombudsman.

"Grievant H claimed unreasonable delay. The Ombudsman found procedural errors and delay in the HRC's handling of the complaint. The result was that the complaint was time-barred from review by the DPP.

"As there was no remedy that could restore the complainant's legal rights or otherwise put her in the position that she would have been had there been no maladministration, the Ombudsman recommended a without prejudice apology and a consolatory ex gratia payment (based on analysis of such payments recommended by Ombudsman in the UK and Canada.

"Note: a consolatory payment is not compensation."

Responding yesterday, Ms Memari said in a statement: "The Human Rights Commission has fully complied with and accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations with respect to the specific complaint to the Ombudsman.

"The Human Rights Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of all systems and procedures with a view to preventing a recurrence of a similar situation and improving the HRC's handling of investigations and complaints generally."

The grievance was one of 134 complaints investigated by Ms Brock's team between August 1, 2006, and July 31, 2007, of which 44 were referred.

Another complaint was made by an emergency repairs worker who was refused $54,000 owed for his services after the Department of Operations failed to keep records properly.

The tradesman — who had given years of honest, diligent service to the department — was only paid after the intervention of Ms Brock, according to her report.

Ms Brock states the worker had carried out extra work on site and, although he kept accurate records, the Operations Department did not.

When he submitted his claim for payment, the department refused it on the grounds that it could not verify his services.

After consultation with Ms Brock, the department checked records with the complainant and ending up paying him.

The Ombudsman concludes by recommending the department improves its system for recording requisitions and services.

Ms Brock also points to a complaint about private rooms in which tenants are living in "appalling physical conditions".

She states: "These tenancy arrangements are usually beyond the reach of the Landlord and Tenant Act, Consumer Affairs or the Rent Commission. Too often, these arrangements are unfair and exploit poor Bermudian tenants as well as lower paid guest workers."

She explains how several Government departments had received similar complaints and had long-standing concerns about how to protect such tenants. Ms Brock says the Department of Environmental Health has now begun to draft legislation on the matter, and that ten sites identified as high-risk have been inspected by Bermuda Fire and Rescue Service, with correspondence sent to each property owner.

She commends the Departments of Immigration, Health, Planning and Consumer Affairs, Bermuda Fire and Rescue Service, Rent Commission and Bermuda Housing Corporation for their cooperation.

Yesterday, The Royal Gazette reported how Ms Brock's report pointed to a lack of transparency in the Department of Planning, and major unresponsiveness within Government Employees Health Insurance and Department of Social Insurance.

The Department of Planning contacted this newspaper yesterday to say it was reviewing Ms Brock's report, and pledged to make further comment today.

However, the Ministry of Finance, responsible for Social Insurance and GEHI, has ignored all requests for comment on Monday and yesterday.

The Ministry's refusal to respond to allegations about its unresponsiveness comes as this newspaper continues with it's A Right To Know: Putting People First campaign, which calls for Government to restore public access to information (PATI) to the top of its agenda and answer questions we believe are in the public interest.

How responsive have you found the GEHI or Department of Social Insurance? E-mail us at arighttoknow@royalgazette.bm or call 278-0155 or 278-8359.