Monday, June 11, 2007

The reason for delay

One of the main reasons why Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolishing the current role of the Local Government Ombudsman was because of the time it took a complainant to secure any sort of justice through them. My case is a paradigm example of how the LGO introduces unwarranted, unfair and excessive delays into their proceedings.

I have already shown that the LGO are ineffective and inefficient but the question worth exploring is why?

A Judge once stated that delay in itself was unjust because delay defeats justice. A Council member of staff is also on record stating that any delay is beneficial to them.

Delay is useful to the LGO and Council because a complainants circumstances often change whilst their long and drawn out investigations are being undertaken. Many people move, some people die, other become so sick and tired that they just give up, the list goes on and on. As a result most complaints are time sensitive, in my case one of my co-complainants moved away and their complaint fell by the wayside. A definite advantage to the LGO and the Council but nobody could argue that justice was done. Essentially the Council got away with maladministration by the LGO's tactic of introducing unnecessary delay.

Delay is also the tactic that the LGO and the Council have been using on me for the last ten years. They hoped that circumstances would change so they could bury the maladministration that I had complained about.

10 years to resolve a problem created by Council maladministration, there can be no other conclusion!

No comments:

Post a Comment