The normal policy of the Ombudsman (supposedly) is to put the complainant back into the position they were before the act of maladministration took place. Unless of course that’s impossible. The Local Government Ombudsman’s 2005/6 annual report gives an extreme example, a person died because of council maladministration. Obviously it would be impossible for the Ombudsman to put the family of the deceased back into the position they were before the maladministration took place. Hence the Ombudsman awarding the family a few hundred pounds and the cost of a memorial.
However, I recently experienced a new twist to the Ombudsman’s policy. The Ombudsman doesn’t want to put me back into the position I was in before the acts of maladministration took place Even though that’s exactly what the council promised in 1998 to resolve an earlier complaint of maladministration. [Highway works would be carried out without any impact on my property.]
Incredulously the Ombudsman now wants me to help the council out of their self created difficulties by allowing the works to impact on my property.
So we now have the ludicrous situation where an Ombudsman found a council guilty of maladministration in 1997. But during 2001, in order to save the expense of moving the road, they decide to complete the Highway so that it will impact on my property.
When I complain to the Ombudsman the Ombudsman at first refuses to get involved. After a 5 year battle the Ombudsman decides to comeback on my complaint but immediately suggests that that I should now allow the council to complete the works, knowing that they will impact on my property.
Yes, you heard it here first, the Ombudsman actually wants me to supply the remedy for numerous acts of maladministration carried out against me by a council. Just to save the council the cost of the alternative.
Is this a worlds first?