Wednesday, July 04, 2007

LGO: unfit for the purpose?

I submitted the following complaint (along with six others) to the Local Government Ombudsman during March 2002.

[That the Council] breached their own complaints procedures and policy guidelines by blocking access to a panel of Councillors after the Chief Executive of Vale Royal Borough Council failed to satisfactorily respond to our complaint about them triggering of the bond.

During May 2006 after a four year delay the Local Government Ombudsman agreed to comeback on my complaints . To date, after another 14 months my complaints have still not been resolved. However, when you analyse the complaints it's very easy to prove one way or the other within days let alone years.

Question 1: Did the Council's complaints procedure include access to a panel of Councillors.?

Answer: Yes. (This can be proven quite easily by anyone who can read.)

Question 2: Did the Council have a policy of allowing complainants to access a panel of Councillors?

Answer: Yes they did. (Again this can be proven quite easily by anyone who can read.)

Question: Did I ask the Chief Executive Officer for access to a panel of Councillors?

Answer: Yes I did. Again this can be proven quite easily by anyone who can read.

Question 3: Did the Chief Executive Officer allow me access to a panel of Councillors?

Answer: No, they told me to take my complaint elsewhere. (Again this can be proven quite easily by anyone who can read.)

So the Chief Executive Officer breached their own complaints procedure by refusing me access to a panel of Councillors. That's called maladministration. Furthermore I suffered injustice as a result.

So we have a situation in which a child could have proven maladministration within weeks of receiving my complaint, however, after 5 years the Local Government Ombudsman still appears to be having some difficulty.

Over the next few weeks I will be posting my other complaints with an analysis of how they could have proven maladministration within weeks if they had wanted to.

That alone clearly makes the Local Government Ombudsman unfit for the purpose.

No comments:

Post a Comment