Inquiry into the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched an inquiry into the Local Government Ombudsman.

The committee said it would take oral evidence from the Ombudsman after Easter on its 2011 annual report and on its activities.

MPs on the committee have invited submissions from interested parties on the LGO’s work.

The call for evidence asks for submissions to cover issues such as:

The function, purpose and remit of the LGO, including the proposed restructuring of the Commission; 

The volume and nature of complaints made to the LGO and expected trends; 

The arrangements for handling complaints;

The adequacy of redress when maladministration is found;

The impact of the extension of jurisdiction to include complaints from those who arrange or fund their own adult social care;

The impact of the LGO's work on local authorities, particularly whether it leads to better administration and improved quality of service;

The LGO's Strategic Corporate Plan and business plan; and

The LGO's management of staff, resources and budgets.

The CLG committee stressed that the inquiry would not look at individual cases considered or before the LGO, nor its handling of particular cases.

It has asked for submissions to be made by 4 pm on 23 March 2012.

Each submission should:

be no more than 4,000 words in length; 

begin with a short summary in bullet point form; 

be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible; and 

be accompanied by a covering letter or email containing the name and contact details of the individual or organisation submitting evidence.

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to clgev@parliament.uk and marked "Building Regs (SIC)". (My comment: Obviously they shouldn't be marked Building Regs, I think the DCLG just copied and pasted this by mistake from another inquiry, I intend marking mine 'Inquiry into the LGO')

It is helpful, for Data Protection purposes, for contact details not to be included in the text of submissions, but sent separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website.

My comment: Download a guide here PDF.

Please also note that:

Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work may be included.

Memoranda submitted should be kept confidential until formally accepted by the Committee. The Committee has authorised the publication by witnesses of their evidence, but such publication should await the formal acknowledgement of acceptance of the submission as evidence to the Committee.
Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee.

The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or making it available through the Parliamentary Record Office.

If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence. Read more here

My comment:  I, together with a number of colleagues, will be submitting evidence on behalf of Ombudsman Watch, Public Service Ombudsman Watchers, The Ombudsman Watchers Resource Centre and myself as a Local Government Ombudsman Watcher. 

However, I would urge all complainants who have suffered further injustice because of the Local Government Ombudsman and the corrupt system of administrative justice they operate to consider sending a submission of their own. 

Please note that the committee can not and will not get involved with or consider individual cases. In addition please try and keep your submission as clear and concise as possible. 

Together we may be able to improve the system of administrative justice in England

for the benefit of all complainants.

Footnote: A list of committee members can be found here 

The LGO: One rule for complainants and one for MPs

Ombudsman agrees to look into Age UK grievance against council following MP's intervention,

A local government watchdog has reversed its decision not to investigate Watford Borough Council over the Age UK Hertfordshire saga following intervention by the area’s MP.

The Local Government Ombudsman will now look into a complaint by Age UK that it has been "defamed" by the authority following the acrimonious fallout between the pair over a £500,000 repairs bill.

Originally, Age UK Hertfordshire was told by the watchdog that it would have to pursue its grievance against the council through the courts.

However Watford MP Richard Harrington then wrote to the ombudsman saying he felt it was inappropriate for the charity to go down an expensive legal route and asked the organisation to clarify its position.

 Mr Harrington said: "I was pleased to receive the letter from the ombudsman in response to my letter to them to discuss avenues through which Age UK can be represented.

"I am satisfied with the response from the ombudsman clarifying that the charity is able to take recourse through the ombudsman as I feel is proper for charities who cannot afford to pursue cases through the courts.

My comment: Most complainants can't afford to pursue their cases through the courts but the Ombudsman still rejects them. Whilst I have every sympathy with the charity many complainants, who's complaints have been rejected by the Ombudsman, have suffered from much more serious injustice than defamation. This is a clear case of one rule for the ordinary complainant and another for a charity supported by an MP. 

The Ombudsman should treat every complaint the same not give MPs special treatment. In addition MPs should support all complainants who can't afford to pursue their complaints through the courts and not pick and choose those which are likely to give them the maximum possible positive publicity.

Read the full story from the source Watford Observer

Suicidal man's compensation from council 'nonsense'

A SUICIDAL resident forced into bankruptcy by Torbay Council over an unpaid council tax bill has described his compensation offer of £1,000 as a 'nonsense'.

The council has made the £1,000 offer despite Ombudsman recommendations that it should pay the man £25,000 after a report last year found wrongdoing by Torbay Council.

The case went before South West ombudsman Dr Martin in May.

My comment: Yet another council that ignores the recommendations of a Local Government Ombudsman. And another case that illustrates the length of time it takes for the Ombudsman to get of their backsides and do something.

Read the full story from the source This is South Devon

The Replacement LGO: Chronology of delay

27th January 2012: Still no replacement for Tony Redmond.

When Tony was recruited during 2001 they knew he would be retiring during 2010, however, some 15 months after he left there is still no indication of when his replacement will start. If it takes the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) so long to recruit a replacement LGO no wonder the country is in such a mess.

See below for a chronology of delay and DCLG excuses.

19th December 2011: So Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England retired on the 11th November 2010.

Historically a replacement is recruited before an existing LGO retires, however, This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left.

Rumours  suggest that his replacement was selected long ago but no date has been given when they will take up post.

At least they won't be able to pick up any bad habits from their predecessor. 

1st July 2011: Tony Redmond's replacement UPDATE

We have now received more information from the DCLG in response to a request for an internal review of an earlier FOI request.

1. The interviews were held on 15 February 2011.
2. 25 candidates applied for the post and four were interviewed.
3. The Department does not currently hold information on the planned date for the successful candidate to take up office.
4. The final selection has not yet taken place.

However, it still doesn't explain why they took so long to start the recruitment process. Especially since they knew Tony Redmond was going to retire in November 2010 when he was recruited in 2001.

I think there is still an unknown reason for the extraordinary delay. 

24th May 2011: So Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

Tony Redmond, LGO London office and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration for England retired in November 2010.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) knew he was going to retire in 2010 when he was recruited in 2001. So they had plenty of time to recruit a replacement well before he retired. However, for some unknown reason they didn't.

When asked why the hadn't begun recruiting a replacement well before he retired the DCLG stated that the couldn't because of the 2010 general elections. However, the reason given can't be true because Anne Seex was recruited in 2005 and just as in 2010 there was a general election in 2005.

My wife (part time assistant) submitted a second Freedom of Information in an attempt to root out the truth.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, Please provide any and all information held about the recruitment of a replacement for Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration, who retired some 6 months ago. Or in the alternative any and all information held which would explain why he is not going to be replaced."

Whatever information they now supply can't mitigate the fact that they clealry provided misleading information in their response to her first FOI request.

Something I am personally going to pursue. Looks like the DCLG , like the LGO, are another body that doesn't like telling the full story.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, You have previously gone on record stating that the reason you couldn't recruit a replacement Local Government Ombudsman in 2010 was because it was during an election year. However, Anne Seex LGO  was recruited in 2005 which was also during an election year.

Therefore, I would like a copy of any policy/guidance changes between 2005 and 2010 that would explain the anomaly. Or if you prefer a better reason for not recruiting a replacement Local Government Ombudsman during 2010."

21st October 2010: Advert for Tony Redmond's replacement

An outstanding opportunity exists to lead the further development of the Local Government Ombudsman service in England. 'We are looking for a person of the highest calibre with a significant track record of achievement to fill the role of Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England and Local Government Ombudsman.

The Commission comprises three Local Government Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The successful applicant will have responsibility for investigating alleged maladministration and service failure by local authorities and certain other public bodies. The Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction has also recently been expanded to adult social care self funders.

As Chair and Local Government Ombudsman you will also have a key role in overseeing and directing the Commission’s Public Value strategy. Much of this activity focuses on improving local authority service provision and developing sound complaints handling arrangements. As Chair you will also play a leading role in advising the Commission in the development and implementation of the strategic and corporate planning for the organisation.

This high profile role demands strong leadership skills and the highest standards of integrity and sound judgement. Candidates must demonstrate high intellectual capacity and an ability to assimilate complex information.'

In the final candidate pack it states 'Tony Redmond leaves office on 11 November 2010, and his successor is now sought. It is aimed to appoint a new Ombudsman by the end of March 2011.'

This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left.  Whilst during 2005 they recruited Anne Seex well before Pat Thomas left so she could learn the ropes this didn't happen when Jerry White left last year. Dr Jane Martin didn't start until well after he left. The same now appears to apply to Tony Redmond, his replacement not starting for nearly five months after he leaves.

It's not just the LGO that accept council lies

It is a well known fact that the Local Government Ombudsman will accept the word of a council without validation, however, a recent expose by Sky News has proven that they are not the only watchdog to allow councils to pull the wool over their eyes.

Read the full story on my other blog.

The woolly thinking Local Government Omudsman

Council refuses to fork out £260,000 over homes row 

SOUTH Holland’s councillors have refused to pay out compensation of more than £260,000 relating to a controversial housing development or to accept a report accusing them of maladministration.

District council members unanimously disagreed with the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman, who had been investigating a three-year-old complaint into the authority’s actions with the Nestwood Homes development in Old Main Road, Fleet Hargate.

A special meeting was held on Monday to decide what action to take on the report, which recommended compensation be made to the developer for reasons including stress, strain and damage to reputation.

The long-running saga into the site started when new homes were built on a different land level to existing properties, which prompted enforcement action and a public inquiry.

He added: “It seems to me the Ombudsman was thinking somewhat woolily and was at worst biased in favour of this company and against our council unfairly in my opinion.”

Coun Bryan Alcock also raised concerns about the “strange” report.

He said: “I find some of the inflammatory way of talking within the report strange.
“I can recognise the style because it’s one I have used from time to time and that’s why I am not an Ombudsman.”

Councillors had been warned Nestwood Homes may choose to take action through the courts but Coun Francis Biggadike urged his fellow councillors not to be “afraid” if they did not accept the report.

“I believe the Ombudsman’s report was far from factual and not at all impartial,” he said.

Councillors voted in favour of receiving the report but said the council does not intend on paying any compensation.

My comment: Complainants are already aware that most reports by the Local Government Ombudsman are strange, far from factual and not at all impartial but it's interesting that councils are now supporting that view.

Read the full story from the source Spalding Guardian

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to all visitors

So where it Tony Redmond's replacement?

Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England retired on the 11th November 2010.

Historically a replacement is recruited before an existing LGO retires, however, This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left.

Rumours  suggest that his replacement was selected long ago but no date has been given when they will take up post.

At least they won't be able to pick up any bad habits from their predecessor. 

My earlier posts on the subject. [1]  [2]

Local Government Ombudsmen and other watchdogs: The final insult

The Local Government Ombudsman costs the taxpayer many £millions a year. Other watchdogs and ombudsmen cost considerably more.

The bodies they supposedly investigate for wrongdoing such as local authorities, government departments etc cost the taxpayers many £billions.

Whilst the Local Government Ombudsman only has the power to recommend compensation, should they find a public body guilty of wrongdoing, other watchdogs, such as the Information Commission, can actually fine them.

However, recommended compensation or fine makes no difference to my 'final insult' argument.

No matter who is responsible within a public body and no matter how serious the offence, all our pathetic watchdogs can do is use a financial deterrent against the public body not individuals within a public body. Which means that the taxpayer also picks up the tab for any public body wrongdoing.

A triple whammy for the taxpayer. 

(1) they have to pay for all public bodies.
(2) they have to pay for all the public service ombudsmen and watchdogs.
(3) they have to pay the compensation or fine.

Here are a couple of examples to illustrate my point.

(1) The Information found two councils guilty of losing unencrypted laptops containing sensitive personal data and fined them a total of £150,000. (There are many other examples available.)

Both laptops were password protected but unencrypted – despite this being in breach of both councils’ policies.

It must have been someone’s responsibly to ensure all laptops were encrypted. Therefore, the ICO should have the powers to force the council to sack, or at least discipline, the individual responsible not fine taxpayers for their wrongdoing.

(2) The Local Government Ombudsman recently found a council guilty of maladministration and recommended they pay £5000 compensation to the victim. (There are many other examples available.)

No one appears to have been sacked or even disciplined because the ombudsman states 'There has been comprehensive staff training since the events in Ms B’s complaint and so the Ombudsman has not recommended any further action.'

Unfortunately this case also illustrates a fourth whammy for the taxpayer.

The final  insult is

(4) they also have to pay to train the staff responsible.

So the bottom line is that only victims and taxpayers suffer as a result of public sector wrongdoing. Public bodies, staff guilty of wrongdoing and elected representatives are all winners.

No wonder elected representatives and our public bodies prefer to keep our pathetic system of administrative justice. 

Further evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose

Further to my previous post 'Evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose'.

Another example has now come to light involving both the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman which confirms the view that they are clearly not fit for purpose.

This example concerns a man with down's syndrome who was ignored after he was detained in hospital and then locked up before he died. The full story can be read from the source The Telegraph.

The article starts by identify the fact that there were serious failings in the care provided to Mr J by Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle City Council and the Coquet Trust.

However, Mrs Seex shoots herself in the foot when she states "The failures in Mr J's case show how public authorities can neglect a vulnerable person's wishes and basic human rights to liberty and family life.

Mrs Seex is a watchdog and this happened on her watch and the reason public authorities can neglect a persons wishes, human rights and family life in the first place is because we don't have any public sector watchdogs who are fit for purpose.

What's even worse than having watchdogs who sleep on their watch is having those who  once they wake reward wrongdoing by the public authorities by recommending pathetic levels of compensation for their wrongdoing. Mr J's  family have been awarded £2,000 for their distress.

Were any of the perpetrators disciplined or sacked? No, just the usual 'lessons will be learnt' and 'procedures will be put into place', which we all know mean  that as soon as the watchdogs go back to sleep everything carries on as before.

Why? Because there is no downside for public sector incompetence and wrongdoing. Worse case scenario is that they may have to give the victim a couple of thousand pounds  and that's taxpayer's money not their own.

One of the comments on the article asks the question, how on earth, in the 21st century, does something like this happen? The answer to that question is because we have ombudsmen and watchdogs who are not fit for purpose.

We need proactive watchdogs, ones who are always on patrol and not sleeping in their taxpayer funded kennels like the current bunch until a scandal forces them into some sort of backside covering action.

Evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose

Many people are already aware that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose. Note: When I use the term Public Service Ombudsmen I primarily mean the Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

However, those who are trying to persuade others of this fact now have some help from an unlikely source.  The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) herself.

The PHSO recently stated "Overly-bureaucratic complaint handling leaves people confused and exhausted, and wastes public money."

Whilst this is indeed true it raises a few question which all our public service ombudsmen need to answer.

The PHSO was established in 1967 and the Local Government Ombudsman in 1974. After 44 years and 37 years respectively in the business one would have assumed that by now they would have whipped the public sector complaints system into some sort of shape. So my questions are....

Q1: Just what have you been doing for 44 years and 37 years respectively if it has taken you this long to realise that our administrative complaints systems are not fit for purpose?

Q2: If it didn't take you 44 years and 37 years respectively to realise our administrative complaints systems are not fit for purpose, why didn't you address the issue much earlier?

Q3: Why have you waited until the 2 longest serving LGOs retired and you are about to retire before publicly declaring what I and many others have known for years? That the system of administrative justice in this country is and never has been fit for purpose.

It's no wonder other watchdogs such as the Local Government Ombudsman and Care Quality Commission are so bad when the PHSO has taken 44 years to realises the complaints system is unfit for purpose and only publicises the fact just before she retires.

Local Government Ombudsman: Pot, kettle - what a joke!

Ombudsman identifies common faults of school admission appeal panels

Lack of communication with parents, absence of impartiality and a failure to accurately record events have all been identified as common failures of school admission appeal panels.

In its latest report the local government ombudsman concludes that school admission appeal panels often make recurring mistakes, subjecting parents and children to unjust rulings.

Read the full story from the source Children and Young People Now.

My comment: How strange because these are exactly the same problems faced by complainant when they submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. 

The LGO offices have an absence of impartiality (they believe the word of a council officer even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is available. Well they would do because most of them are ex local authority.) and nobody makes more mistakes and unjust ruling than the Local Government Ombudsman, well they would do because most of them are ex local authority. What a joke the LGO have become,

The LGO's Dumb and Dumber?

Background: I have been off-line for a while due to a series of unfortunate events. Firstly my computer crashed and it took quite a while reinstall all my programs and back up files. Unfortunately this happened just a day or so before I was due to go into hospital for a long awaited operation.

I was expecting to be in hospital for two or three days but ended up being in for a week. In addition, I was in one of the wards that hadn't yet had the TV/Internet/Telephone service installed to each bed which made matters even worse.

As a result when I returned home and switched on my computer my email imbox was overflowing with mail. To make it easier for myself I decided to tag each email and group them before responding. It is an analysis of these tags that led me to write this post which I decided to misleading call 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber'.

The analysis of my latest bunch of emails confirmed what I and many other people already knew.

1) More people are dissatisfied with the York Office than the other two LGO Offices put together.

2) Two names keep cropping up with regularity when people complain about the York Office, Mr Hobbs and Mrs Seex.

Hence the title of this post 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber?'

I first encountered the work of this un-dynamic duo some 5 years ago when they set about trying to cover up the mistakes made by Hobbs and his staff during an earlier (pre Seex) investigation. It would appear from the many emails I receive that their MO hasn't changed after all these years.

To illustrate the point I am trying to make I am using a few of the things they got up to with my complaint. There are many more if you read all the posts on this blog.

1) Mr Hobbs accepting the word of a council solicitor without validation. Even though evidence, contrary to what the solicitor stated, was available and overwhelming.

However, when this was brought to the attention of Mrs Seex she neither castigated Mr Hobbs for accepting the word of a council solicitor without validation or the solicitor for lying to him. Neither did she put into place any procedures to stop this happening because 6 years later this is still the most common complaint against LGO staff. Which rather goes to prove that accepting the lies of a council officer, instead of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not only accepted it's a well established practice.

2) Mr Hobbs using irrational and ludicrous reasoning to support his decisions.

If it is established that a council officer misled the LGO you can request comeback on your complaint. As a result of the council officer lying to the LGO I requested comeback on my complaint. Mr Hobbs initially refused to comeback on my complaint stating irrationally and ludicrously that I didn't meet the comeback criteria.

Whilst Mrs Seex did eventually comeback on my case, let's face it she didn't really have an option, she failed  to put into place any procedures to stop this happening again because 6 years later, this is still a common complaint against LGO staff. Which rather goes to prove that the use of irrational and at times ludicrous reasoning to support their perverse decisions is not only an accepted it's a well established practice.

Within weeks of me persuading them to comeback on my case they introduced a 3 month time limit on future comeback requests making a similar request today impossible. It often takes much longer to establish that a council officer lied to the LGO let alone produce the evidence to request comeback within 3 months. Which rather goes to prove that they prefer to find ways to stop their use of irrational and at times ludicrous reasoning being challenged rather than eradicating the devious practice itself.

3) Mr Hobbs illegally initiating a complaint.

It was a well know fact at the time that, whilst the LGO could accept a complaint against a council, they were not statutory enabled to initiate a complaint themselves. However, this didn't deter Mr Hobbs from initiating a complaint against my council in my name without my agreement. The reason he did this was obvious, he didn't want to comeback on my original complaint, for that would have exposed his failings,  preferring instead to illegally initiate another complaint.

When this was brought to the attention of Mrs Seex it was dismissed as a mere triviality. Which begs the question, if the LGO are willing to turn a blind eye the illegal activities of their staff what else do they conveniently overlook?

I had been suspicious for a years that the LGO had been giving me different information than that they gave the Council, however, until the Freedom of Information Act there was very little I could do to confirm my suspicions.

4 and 5 below are as a result of Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests to the council.

4) Statistical manipulation.

I was concerned at how this  'extra' illegally initiated complaint would be statistically recorded by the LGO because I was well aware that they had a habit of multi counting complaints to maximise the benefit to them. I was assured that this would not be recorded in any way beneficial to them. However, when I eventually obtained a copy of the letter they sent the council it contradicted that assurance. Which rather goes to prove that they are quite prepared to lie to complainants when it suits them. 

5) Fabrication of documents.

During communications with the Council I became suspicious that a letter the LGO had 'supposedly' sent both of us had in fact never been sent to the Council. I decided to use the Freedom of Information Act to prove my theory, if the Council could produce the letter then my theory was wrong, if they couldn't then I was right, the LGO was just being deviously misleading by sending me a copy of a letter they hadn't actually sent the council.

The response to my Freedom of Information request took longer that expected but the reason soon became obvious. The Council didn't have a copy of the letter as I had suspected, however, rather than just admitting that they contacted the LGO who decided to fabricate a letter for them.

This in itself is suspicious because a Freedom of Information request is a request for information held and a valid response is that they don't have the information requested. So why go to the trouble of fabricating a letter?

There is only one logical answer to that question and that was an attempt to cover up the fact they never sent the Council the letter in the first place?

When I compared the letter the LGO produced for the Council to the one they sent to me years earlier it became obvious that they had fabricated the letter for the Council. Good job otherwise I would have been unaware of their duplicitous behaviour concerning this matter. Which rather goes to prove that they are quite prepared to fabricate letters when it suits them. 

Earlier I stated that I had misleading called this post 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber'. That's because they are far from Dumb and Dumber, it's just that when someone tries to arrive at a conclusion, that logic and evidence doesn't support, the only options available to them are

a) to use use irrational and fallacious  argument to support their position. The one used by Mr Hobbs on many occasions during my complaint and if the emails I receive are anything to go by, he is still using today.

b) to overlook or ignore the issue or some available evidence. The one used by Mrs Seex on many occasions during my complaint and if the emails I receive are anything to go by, she is still using today.

The problem is that the above options make the most intelligent person look dumb.  

It's a good double act though, one to initially try and put people off with perverse decisions supported by irrational arguments and the other to overlook or at least minimise any fallout created by the use of such devious tactics.

Tactics which due to their unaccountability they have been able to get away with for years. The only downside is that in using these tactics they make themselves look like Dumb and Dumber. More about the Dummies that work for them in a later post.

The Scottish Ombudsman has strongly criticised complaints systems

The Scottish Public Service Ombudsman has wrong footed the Local Government Ombudsman by criticising complaints systems, something the Local Government has never done.

Worse still, the system he criticises is the system adopted by the Local Government Ombudsman, 'confusing, difficult to access, slow, cumbersome and overly bureaucratic'.

 In addition he states: "Of all the complaints where it was fit for for the SPSO to investigate, a total of 34% were upheld either fully or partly.

"To put this another way, in over a third of cases that had already been investigated by the local service provider, through multiple, often lengthy, stages of review and appeal, that provider had got something wrong."

Compare the figures with the Local Government Ombudsman, one who goes out of their way to bury complaints for Local Authorities. Even after all their fiddling their own annual report still shows a figure of  27.1%.

Which could be put another way,  in nearly a third of cases that had already been investigated by the local service provider, through multiple, often lengthy, stages of review and appeal, that provider had got something wrong.

Yet the Local Government Ombudsman still send out annual letters congratulating Local Authorities on how well they are doing. Contrast their burying heads in the sand approach to that of the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, who has at least the balls to accept something is wrong with the system of administrative justice in Scotland, rather than adopt the Local Government Ombudsman's approach of pretending everything in the garden is rosy.

Read more about what the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman said here and here.

Another council exposes the LGO as a duplicitous toothless poodle!

SHEFFIELD Council has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for its response to two complaints about housing repairs – including a case in which a tenant waited eight months for a gas service. Read the full story from the source The Star

The problem is that we have been here before, LGO criticises a council, council ignores them and carries on as before. The LGO can make recommendations but cannot force a council to follow them.

It's a bit like a judge saying to the defendant I recommend you go to jail for 3 months but have no power to put you in jail. Or I recommend you pay a fine of £250 but have no power to make you pay.

The LGOs are, and always have been, toothless poodles pretending to be  watchdogs with only one option and that is to suck up to councils in an attempt to gently persuade them to do the right thing and stop all their wrongdoing. Now whilst this tactic may work with the few good councils, what about the Wirrals, Barnets, Sheffields, Traffords and others of this world.

A commentator on the original article linked to about sums it up when they say: "Every year the LGO criticises Sheffield City Council for the way it treats the people of the city and expresses concerns over the way the council is run. The council are always guilty of deception, laziness, a lack of urgency and contempt for the LGO. And every year the council are allowed to carry on just the same. They never change and it seems nobody can make them. They are above the law and act accordingly." 

The bottom line is that the Local Government Ombudsman is a waste of taxpayers money for four reasons

1) they cost significantly more than they recover in compensation for the people who complain to them about injustice suffered through council wrongdoing.

2) in spite of them manipulating their statistics in an attempt to bury the truth, council wrongdoing has risen year on year.

3) in spite of them manipulating their customer satisfaction surveys in an attempt to bury the truth, the number of dissatisfied complainants has risen year on year.

4) they report too little council wrongdoing as maladministration, preferring instead to bury it with the help of the council as a settled complaint. Please note: The complainant cannot stop a council and local government ombudsman conspiring to bury their complaint this way. The average compensation is about £500.

The reason they prefer to bury complaints as settled is down to their lack of mandatory powers. If they were to report council wrongdoing for what it is, maladministration, the council is free to ignore any recommendations of compensation.

Therefore, if the LGO can get the council to agree to pay compensation this wouldn't expose the fact they can't force them to pay. However, they only thing they have to offer the council in exchange for agreeing to pay the compensation is that they won't record their wrongdoing as maladministration.

As a result most of the council wrongdoing in England is not reported it is hidden from scrutiny. Less than 1% of all complaints are reported as maladministration whilst some 25% of all complaints which consist of council wrongdoing are hidden as settled and not reported. In spite of the fact that the complainant had no say in the matter.

Unfortunately a full council only has to consider reports finding injustice through maladministration not settled cases, which leads to another and more serious problem. Settled cases aren't scrutinised properly by the council, allowing those guilty of wrongdoing, usually senior officers, to deviously cover their backsides at taxpayers expense.

If a Local Government Ombudsman's investigation is likely to reveal maladministration on the part of a senior officer all they have to do is offer to pay a few hundred pounds compensation to settle the case and hey presto the case is settled. The amount of compensation is usually less than they can spend under delegated powers and no report of injustice caused through maladministration is published. That means that the full council does not necessarily know about the incident. All that is reported to the full council in the LGO's annual review is how many cases were settled, not the full detail.

What doesn't help is that fact that many LGO and their staff are ex officers and were brought up knowing how to escape full council scrutiny by settling complaints early. Therefore, now working for the LGO they can hardly stop this devious practice because if they did they would have to admit they benefited from it when they were council officers.

Therefore the most accurate description of a Local Government Ombudsman is a duplicitous toothless poodle.

Wirral Council: Where was the Local Government Ombudsman?

Wirral council have been in the news recently, read more here.

Mr Morton’s claims of bullying, cover-ups and maladministration have now led the independent inquiry to conclude that the authority needs a root and branch change in its culture.

 The council was in the grip of a “corrosive” and “inward-looking culture where the needs and rights of residents had become submerged under its bureaucratic machinations. Read the full story here.

How could such a badly run council have such a low number of findings of maladministration against them by the LGO?

2010/11  34 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2009/10  166 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2008/09 43 complaints 1 finding of maladministration reported by LGO.

2007/08 87 complaints  1 finding of maladministration reported by LGO.

2006/07 95 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2005/06 100 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2005/2011 525 complaints against Wirral Council and only 2 findings of maladministration reported by LGO. Now I call that a statistical impossibility unless your objective is to hide the true level of council wrongdoing or like Foulkes you were asleep on the job.

If a very badly run council like Wirral can get away with only 2 out of 525 complaints being reported as maladministration over a 6 year period just how much wrongdoing is reported by the LGO against the average council in any one year? Answer Less than 1%. 

However, if you think that is a ridiculously low figure, the LGO responsible for Wirral Council only found maladministration in only 0.1% of all complaints submitted in 2008. That's only 1 in 1000 complaints submitted were reported by Ann Seex as maladministration. Ten times lower than the national LGO average. And that why councils like Wirral can get away with cover-ups and maladministration for years....until  of course someone else does the LGO's job and blows the lid off council cover ups and maladministration.

UPDATE 23/9/2011: The reason why the LGO are so bad? 

Now I am in the fortunate position of being able to tell you how easily badly run councils can deceive the Local Government Ombudsman. During a discussion with an investigator they stated that they had 'no reason to disbelieve anything a council told them'. Followed by the breathtakingly naive statement 'why would a council lie to us'.

How an earth can a complainant get a fair and impartial investigation of their complaints with the odds stacked so firmly in favour of the council? Even though the Local Government Ombudsman manipulate their statistics to make them look better than they are, they still report less than 1% of complaints as maladministration. Maybe the fact that all Local Government Ombudsmen and most of their staff are ex council will give you a clue.

I have been trying to blow the whistle on the LGO for years but like Wirral Council, the Care Quality Commission and others, they can get away with it for years until a scandal forces the press and our elected representatives to lift the lid on these corrupt quangos an public sector bodies.

An old joke about the LGO but still valid

Question: Why is a Doctor held in much higher esteem than a Local Government Ombudsman?

Answer: A Doctor makes an analysis of a appalling illness whereas a Local Government Ombudsman makes you ill with a appalling analysis!

BONUS JOKES

Q: What's the problem with jokes about Local Government Ombudsmen? A: Local Government Ombudsmen don't think they are funny whilst other people don't think they are jokes.

Arguing with a Local Government Ombudsman is like mud wrestling with a pig: after a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it.

Council Chief Executive responding to a Local Government Ombudsman, 'If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you'.

I'd like to see things from a Local Government Ombudsman's point of view but I can't get my head that far up a chief executive officer's arse.

A Local Government Ombudsman is about as useful as a windscreen wiper on a goat's arse.

Judging by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," makes a Local Government Ombudsman practically invulnerable.

The Local Government Ombudsman promises to keep an open mind. The only problem is that everything goes straight through.

We all spring from apes but Local Government Ombudsmen didn't spring far enough.

LGO and Council silly season is here again

It's that time of year again in which councils receive their annual spin letters from the Local Government Ombudsman. Get your councils full annual letter here and find out how many cases of wrongdoing and maladministration the LGO buried for them.

Local press all around the country are printing extracts from their council's letter with the misleading headline...NO MALADMINISTRATION. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It's all down to the use of a devious tactic I like to call statistical gymnastics.

When is maladministration not maladministration? If an ombudsman finds maladministration but the council agree to pay a paltry amount of compensation it is not recorded as maladministration. However, should the council refuse to pay a paltry amount of compensation it becomes maladministration and reported as such.

This forces the council to publicise the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration, which usually costs more than the settlement the ombudsman would have been happy with. Therefore, only a stupid council would turn down the ombudsman's offer to terminate a complaint if they pay the complainant a paltry amount of compensation. Which on average is less than £600.

A cheap and nasty pseudo system of administrative justice allows local government ombudsmen, councils and government to bury council wrongdoing and maladministration on the cheap, so it's a win, win, win situation for them.

The only losers are complainants who don't get the justice they deserve and of course the general public who are left in the dark about the true level of council wrongdoing and maladministration.

Another not fit for purpose toothless watchdog?

Most people are already aware that the Local Government Ombudsman is a not fit for purpose toothless watchdog whose sole purpose appears to be to give false hope to complainants. Just long enough for other remedies to be no longer available to the complainant and then they bury the complaint as quick as they can. Unless of course it's a high profile one that can be used for propaganda purposes as part of their evangelical agenda.

Well it looks they are not alone...The Legal Service Ombudsman appears to be another not fit for purpose toothless watchdog.

Read more on the link particularly the comments.

My favourites

1) How happy are the 3768 people with the service?

My answer: Like the LGO I doubt they will ever allow an independent organisation to ask them all. More than likely they will pre-select a few and then ask the right questions to get the answers they want.  

2) £21.4M / 3,768 complaints investigated = £5,679 per complaint (or a bargain basement £2,202 against operating costs only). The report says they have 263 employees. That's an average of 14 complaints dealt with by each of them. You couldn't make it up, could you? Did Sampson keep a straight face when he said "the organisation had had a cost-effective and efficient start, and was proving to be an effective model", as he trousered a very "cost-effective" £161K for a job worth about half that?

My answer: The LGO also keep a straight face when they talk about how cost effective and efficient they are whilst trousering vast sums of taxpayers money.

No maladministration my arse

There was an article in an on-line local paper recently which was essentially nothing more than a rehash of press releases issued by local councils together with extracts from the annual review letter sent to councils by the Local Government Ombudsman.

At this time of the years you will find many local newspapers doing exactly the same because every year the Local Government Ombudsman sends out an annual review letter regarding councils' performance. If you are interested in your own council download their annual letter here.

If you ignore the usual padding, information which is included in every annual review sent to councils, such as what training the LGO can offer a council, or a summary of any changes to their remit, basically what you are left with is scant detail of a councils performance when it comes to complaints.

Using the "No maladministration here" article from the newspaper above as an example

"NO findings of maladministration causing injustice were found against either West Norfolk Council or Breckland Council in the Local Government Ombudsman’s latest annual review. "

This statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Whilst it may be true that no reports finding maladministration leading to injustice where issued it is not true to say no maladministration was found.

Reading on you will see how this misrepresentation is made possible with a little help from their friends the LGO.

"In regard to the borough council [West Norfolk Council] .... two [complaints] were resolved through local settlements" 

"In Breckland [Breckland Council] .... two [complaints] were local settlements.

So what is a local settlement and why, if you were not guilty of maladministration, would you agree to pay a complainant compensation?

This is how it works, during the investigation as soon as it becomes obvious to all concerned that maladministration leading to injustice has taken place, a local settlement is either offered by the LGO or asked for by the council. If a settlement between them is agreed, further investigation is dropped and a report finding maladministration leading to injustice is never issued.

It is important to note that the complainant cannot stop the LGO terminating their complaint as a local settlement. It is agreed between the LGO and the Council. Therefore, it can't really be classed as a settlement and neither can it be classed as local. Something I have been arguing for years. Here's is an early post on the subject, there are many more, just put local settlements in the search my blog bar (top right).

Since they were illegally introduced by the LGO some years ago, local settlements have received so such much criticism the discredited Local Government Ombudsman has finally been forced to discontinue using the misleading term.

Local settlements will in future be described as ‘Discontinued investigation: injustice remedied'. 

Back to the original story. The Local Government Ombudsman is empowered to investigate maladministration leading to injustice. The article proudly boats "no maladministration here", however, if the investigations were discontinued because the injustices were remedied, logic dictates that the councils in question must have been guilty of at least two counts  of maladministration each.

So why do councils mislead the public and why do the LGO appear so keen to help them?